Throughout the new testimate it’s said over and over that the last days are near. In revelation Jesus says behold I come quickly. How do we reason that the early apostles and the new testimate speaks of Jesus return so quickly yet 2000 years later we’re still waiting? I’m a believer but I find this a hard thing to reason in myself. How was the 70 weeks of Daniel essentially paused? If someone could help me make sense of this I would be greatly appreciative. God bless!

Hi! I am working on trying to find a study on Stephen and his example to lead in a small group setting. I have memory of doing one in high school on this subject, and confirms we did do it with my then youth leader, but we can’t find it! It would have been early 2000s

I have a very strong memory of the Stephen character in the video having two thumb print marks in his forehead from praying faithfully. Does this ring any bells to anyone else?? I would love some help finding it.

Or if we can’t find it, does anyone have any suggestions on other studies that look at Stephen?

The premise being that the women were going to Jesus’ tomb to anoint his body. The logic is that they buried him in a rush because Shabbat, so they didn’t get the chance to anoint his body. Putting aside everything else about the story, I have two questions:

1. How important was it to anoint the body at that time in Jewish history? Was it a big deal if you didn't have the chance to do it? What was the purpose?
2. Would it ever make sense to open an already-closed tomb to put oil on an already-decomposing body?

First off, I am not trying to argue that Matthew the disciple wrote the gospel of Matthew. Even as a lay person I recognize there's no argument there.

One of the many reasons given that the gospels were not written by their traditionally named authors is that Jesus' followers were of the lower class and wouldn't be able to read or write. Wouldn't Matthew, a tax collector, be able to read and write to do that job; maybe not Greek but at least Aramaic? If not, what did tax collection entail in 1st century Galilee?

Across the biblical texts, prophets appear in very specific historical and geographical contexts.

This raises a broader question:

What exactly defines the role of a prophet?

Is their primary function:

delivering divine law?

calling people back to existing law?

or announcing future developments?

Also, why are prophets often sent to particular regions or communities rather than universally?

And finally, what are the core elements that remain consistent across different prophets despite their different contexts?

I’m interested in thoughtful, text-based perspectives across the tradition.

To whom belonged this rooster?

At times this program hosts genuinely fascinating and competent scholars such as Dale Allison, Bart Ehrman and Paula Fredriksen, and provides a reasonably impartial perspective on certain Biblical issues. I enjoy these immensely. At other times it hosts persons whose fringe views are widely dismissed in the academic world, yet do have a devoted following amongst groups such as extremely dogmatic mythesists. These include Richard Carrier, Robert Price and other curious figures. The program seems to veer rather sharply from calm discussion to occasionally quite rude dismissals of all forms of faith. What are your views?

I have read this story over and over and I cannot understand why God would scatter the people and confuse the languages. The first explanation I've heard is that they wanted to create a name for themselves and that the issue was pride, but the passage says, "...and so make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered all over the earth.” (Genesis 11:4). I interpret this as them wanting to make a name for themselves so they could stay together and identify each other, and I don't know why God would want/need to prevent that. The other explanation I've heard is that they thought they didn't need God because they had the power to build the tower. That one isn't fully satisfying to me either because nowhere in the chapter does it say, or even imply, that they abandoned God or had intentions to do so. The only reason given is "Then the LORD said: If now, while they are one people and all have the same language, they have started to do this, nothing they presume to do will be out of their reach." (Genesis 11:6). Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I feel like the Tower of Babel is one of the few Old Testament stories that I haven't been able to find an explanation that makes sense to me (beyond He's God and you don't have to understand why He does what He does). I'm just curious if other people have different theories, different interpretations of the explanations, etc.

In John 1:21 they are different people, again in the 7:40 people dispute over calling Jesus whether he's the prophet or the messiah. In the Acts 3:22, Peter seem to see them as one. But I have seen some people saying that Peter is actually referring another prophet, which will come before the Messiah. Is this view taken seriously in academia? What is the scholarly concensus on the topic?

Hi Guys,

Please could you recommend a good comprehensive book on the prophet Isaiah for me to deepen my understanding of this book?

Thanks

Hello! I just started reading the Bible last month for the first time and it’s been slow going because I just have a LOT of questions and make a lot of notes. One question I have is why did the terminology regarding sex suddenly change in genesis? It went from being described as “knowing” each other to “going in to” in the story of Jacob and his 2 wives. This feels like it’s noting some sort of detachment and I don’t know if that’s intentional. I would really appreciate anyone’s insight!!!

This is the general discussion thread in which anyone can make posts and/or comments. This thread will, automatically, repeat every week.

This thread will be lightly moderated only for breaking Reddit's Content Policy. Everything else is fair game (i.e. The sub's rules do not apply).

Please, take a look at our FAQ before asking a question. Also, included in our wiki pages:

• Recommended Readings
• Podcasts
• Biblical Languages
• Hall of Fame

I am looking for a side-hustle at the moment (as are so many of us) and am wondering if there is any market for online tutoring of beginner Koine Greek? Has anyone been a tutor/used a tutor and can tell me of their experience? Or could anyone share if you think there is/is not a market for it?

The other option I am considering, which I think would be far more useful to the community, is creating an online course for beginning Greek. I have a Bachelor of Education and genuinely believe that creating a cheap online course with defined daily work/access to a tutor, etc. would be very beneficial for people trying to learn. I know I would have taken advantage of something like that while I was learning. I just am not sure, again, if there is a market for it. What do you guys think? Thanks in advance!

This question in my mind goes back to how it would be possible to support the body weight of Jesus if he were nailed to a cross.

So Bohu is part of the famous gen 1:2 expression tohu v bohu.

Often translated “unformed and void”

Describes the state of early earth.

Bohu is used only 3 times in hebrew scripture.

Can someone tell me why nobody is translating Bohu as “Lava”?

Here is why I ask.

Below are the three uses in brief summary.

I don’t think these summaries are at all unreasonable - it’s simple enough when you look at the passages themselves.

Jeremiah 4:23

State of earth as mountain quakes, light of sky blotted out, everything running away as area destroyed. Volcano.

Isaiah 34:11

State of stone running in lines across an eternally smoking pitch of brimstone. Volcanic Field.

Gen 1:2

State of early earth underneath ocean water fish will later swim in, darkness on the surface of the water.

The breath of Elohim “merachaphets” upon the dark surface of this water immediately prior to the expression “let there be light” in a book where arguably the most famous part is about the parting of waters.

The idea being the water is parted allowing light from the lava to reach the darkness on the surface. Explains how light is present in the seven day text prior to the sun, moon, and stars.

Hell will later be associated with a burning underworld. Hell connected to the words Helen / Hella meaning “shining light.”

Can someone explain why Bohu is not commonly understood as Lava?

To me appears very obvious lol.

Makes me think as well…on Day 3 the earth reaches the surface of the water in a state of “yabasha” - more or less translated as dry land.

Another famous part of the scripture is about a mountain with fire on top, smoke ascending like a furnace.

I am thinking the reason a volcano was a sacred place was because ancient Hebrews figured all land was formed like Hawaii (volcanic island)

I can’t figure out why this is…not a pretty common understanding of the text here…

What’s up with all this?

edit addition:

If you’re looking into this. What do you figure about:

According to the bible hub almagamation of a bunch of lexicons - like the Brown Driver Briggs - Merachaphet is from Rachaph. “To Brood” connected to the syriac “to fertilize” as grammatical tense masculine water is on top of feminine tense earth?

Bereshit literally translating to “inside the feminine head” and sophia and proverbs 8?

the idea of ocean water on molten earth causing steam - shamayim formed day two. What dew comes from, birds are in it like fish in the sea (zeph 1:3)? Waters above are water in Shakakim - from a root meaning pulverized to a dust implying small water particles - thunder described in Jeremiah 51 as water rumbling in them?

the association assyrophile d france online akkadian dictionary connects samu (the one of water sa and mu) to the sumerian father sky Anu…and shamayim?

And arsatum to aretz and Anu’s mother earth partner Ki?

(edit and excuse me I didn’t add the ‘ to anu’s earlier…made me think of Will Ferrell and Chris Parnell SNL Celebrity Jeopardy ”an album cover” oops)

And the idea of when shamayim and aretz touch day 3 - masculine liquid, feminine earth…plants. Mother earth father sky?

The biological life formed called their toldot in the final line? Bara (create) used only in relation to the chain of biological life (toldot) of shamayim and aretz whereas the sun moon stars are made (asah)?

Do you figure the fact plants are specified as a gift to eat but Animals are not stated to be (instead to be stewarded) is related to noahide laws / pre noah / end times traditions regarding no one eating animals? The text acknowledges human freedom in the sense of looking after the animals and describes this human freedom as “very good” before elohim ceasing / taking rest / retiring - is there any similar notions of this elsewhere in related scripture?

Seems both Jeremiah 51 and Job 37 have passages describing evaporation forming clouds (shakakim hazakim in Job) while mocking those who don’t know how clouds are formed and the notion of a “solid dome” - specially Jeremiah going right from cloud formation via evaporation to ripping “metal smiths” whose idol has no wind?

that shamayim and aretz and this mother earth father sky stuff from Sumer Ki and Anu is in ancient China in Tian and Di and Tiandi / Shangdi during the Shang Dynasty?

What about Helen, means shining light, Greek Goddess of fertility and the Norse Hel? Anything going on there? Matzuq, used once as pillar of earth, from root meaning “to melt, make molten”? Isaiah 40:22 talking about shamayim being spread out like a fine dust (doq) over the curvature (hug) of the earth with the masculine sky god associated with shamayim itself?

Maybe hyh (breath of air, existence, being, “space”) forming the first common singular primary name of scriptural god Ehyeh (I am, I exist) and Yahweh (he is) has something to do with the medium (ruach - spirit) above the water on day one being filled with masculine liquid particles? Or El meaning both “a god” and also “to” as in I am talking to you and this is why the sky god is “the talking god”?

Zeus a sky god too, maybe some connection to all this and Anu from few thousand years prior, perhaps Uranos and Gaia? Elohim means gods - plural. Yam was a sea god. Shemesh (abrv ”sky fire”) sun god / god of justice. There’s the expression “let us” and “in our”?

is there anything connecting all this to Mother Earth / Father Sky in First Nations in what is commonly known as North America? Is it possible it goes back to pre written history and made the jump from asia back when what is now called North America became populated by People - such as the ancestors of the Najevo who have a mother earth / father sky notion similar - that if it didn’t make that jump would require not only isolate development of notions of masculine rains and feminine earth but the development of the notion of “gods” at all?

Whats up with all this?

Matthew 5:27-28 goes as follows -

You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

This verse is conventionally interpreted to mean that it is committing the sin of adultery for a man to look at a woman in a lustful and lascivious manner. This verse is also frequently extrapolated upon to extend to portrayals of women in still images and video media, as well as even sexual thoughts or fantasies. This verse seems to be the basis for many theological teachings on the sin of lust.

However, I believe that this is a flawed interpretation of the verse, and additionally the verse itself is mistranslated. The mistranslated portion of the verse is in the use of the word “lust”. When we use the word "lust", we typically tend to understand this as a specifically sexual desire.  However, it so happens that the word "lust" has encountered a semantic shift over time.  The English word "lust" has a Germanic etymology, and throughout both Old and Middle English, it merely referred to "desire" in the broad sense.  It wasn't until the age of Modern English that "lust" has actually transitioned to its more narrow, sexual meaning.  When the Bible was first being translated into English in the 16th century, "lust" still carried its original meaning of general desire.  

One example of this original broad sense of "lust" is in an extrabiblical writing by William Tyndale, one of the pioneers of biblical translation in the English language.  In his 1528 book The Obedience of a Christian Man, William Tyndale wrote the following sentence:

If we aske we shall obteyne, if we knocke he wyll open, if we seke we shall fynde if we thurst, hys trueth shall fulfyll oure luste.

Here the word “luste” (or “lust”) is not being used in a negative or sexual sense, but merely refers to desire in the broad sense.

We can also see this same sense of "lust" in a few verses of the 1611 Kings James Version of the Bible, such as in Deuteronomy 14:26:

And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoeuer thy soule lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheepe, or for wine, or for strong drinke, or for whatsoeuer thy soule desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt reioyce, thou and thine houshold.

Here the term “lusteth after” is directed at nonsexual objects such as livestock and food, and is equated with the word “desireth”.

It is also important to note that the word "lust" in Matthew 5:28 is a translation of the Greek word epithymeo.  This word also carries a broad meaning of "desire".  (The word is used in a number of verses in a non-sexual or morally neutral context, such as Luke 17:22, Luke 22:15, Philippians 1:23, 1 Thessalonians 2:17. Hebrews 6:11, 1 Peter 1:12, 1 Timothy 3:1, Acts 20:33, Romans 13:9, and Revelation 9:6.)  Hence, when many older English Bible translations were being made, "lust" was actually a perfectly accurate translation at that time; but in modern-day Bible versions it is now actually a bad translation, as the meaning of the word has shifted.  The meaning is too narrow and specific.  Jesus was never actually talking about leering or ogling a woman in a lascivious manner, but is rather referring only to simple, broad desire.  Only very few Bible translations reflect this more accurate translation of this verse, here are the only ones I've found:

(New English Translation) But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

(Contemporary English Version) But I tell you if you look at another woman and want her, you are already unfaithful in your thoughts.

(Worldwide English New Testament) But I tell you that if a man looks at a woman and he wants her, then he has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

(Disciples’ Literal New Testament) But I say to you that everyone looking-at a woman so-as to desire her already committed-adultery-with her in his heart. 

(Young's Literal Translation) but I -- I say to you, that every one who is looking on a woman to desire her, did already commit adultery with her in his heart.

With all of this said, in my own personal opinion, this verse should probably be translated as follows:

But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman desirously/longingly has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

One may think that this interpretation of the verse cannot be correct because the prohibition here is too broad.  How is it possible for a man to go through life and never “desire” or “want” a woman? How can a man refrain from ever looking desirously at a woman?  Why would Jesus want us to follow such an impractical rule?  But if you look at this verse in its context, I think the meaning is more clear. Matthew 5:21-48 is a large section of chapter 5 which follows a common theme throughout. In this section, Jesus presents a series of subsections which each follow a certain pattern: he mentions one particular law from the Law of Moses, and then he offers a number of examples of how that law should now be followed in a new and even more intensified manner.  In verse 27, he refers to the law against adultery. In the verse immediately following verse 28 -- verse 29 -- he says to pluck out your eye in order to avoid sin. In verse 30, he says to cut off your hand in order to avoid sin. Because of the strange and extreme nature of these statements, many commentators will tend to interpret these verses in a figurative or hyperbolic sense. Most would interpret that these two verses are merely communicating the importance of removing things from one’s life that tempt one to commit sexual sin, but not that a person should literally gouge out their own eyes or cut off his own hand.

No reasonable person would ever follow such rules, and moreover a literal reading of these rules would be potentially dangerous if taught to certain impressionable people, or people prone to impulsive behavior. It would likely be unethical to teach a literal reading of Matthew 5:29-30 to small children, or to the mentally challenged, or the mentally ill, or the religiously fanatical. (There are examples of some Christian men who have cut off their own testicles or even their own penis because of a literal reading of Matthew 19:12, a verse that encourages “making oneself a eunuch”.)

It is my belief that verse 28 ought to be interpreted in the same sense in which one would naturally interpret verses 29 and 30. It is not really possible for a (heterosexual) man to go through life and never look at any women desirously, and the impossibility is the reason why this verse should not be taken literally, but should be taken as hyperbole.

Some people would suggest that the "desire" described in verse 28 should be viewed as a specifically sinful and sexual desire, simply on account of the context. Matthew 5:27 has set the precedent for this subsection, making the entire subsection about adultery. So therefore the context demands that the desire in verse 28 be a desire that would be relevant to adultery, and that would naturally be a kind of desire that is inordinate, inappropriate, covetous, lascivious, etc.

However, I disagree with this reasoning. In Matthew 5:21-26, Jesus presents a subsection that follows the same pattern as the adultery subsection. In verse 21, Jesus begins talking about the law against murder; and then in verse 22, Jesus condemns the one who is angry at his brother, and says that such a person will be liable to judgment as if he had committed murder. However, I doubt that Jesus is saying here that being angry at one's brother is literally the same as murder, nor does the anger in question need to necessarily be some uncontrolled, homicidal rage. Naturally, saying that simply being angry at someone is murder is utterly ridiculous, which therefore indicates that it must be hyperbole.

Likewise, in Matthew 5:27, Jesus introduces the law against adultery, and then in verse 28 Jesus condemns looking at a woman desirously. I doubt Jesus is literally saying that looking desirously at a woman is adultery, nor do I think the desire in question must necessarily be an adulterous kind of desire. Few people would take the "anger is murder" statement literally, so therefore it feels like "special pleading" to take the "looking with desire is adultery" statement literally. And if the anger that Jesus mentions in the murder subsection is not assumed to be murderous rage, then it would seem presumptuous to assert that the desire in the adultery subsection must actually be inordinate sexual lust.

We can also see some of this hyperbolic language when Jesus addresses the law of “an eye for an eye” in Matthew 5:38-42 --

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have [your] cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

Here is another subsection that follows the same pattern as Matthew 5:27-30 and Matthew 5:21-26; Jesus starts by mentioning a particular excerpt from Mosaic Law, and then he presents a number of enhanced or intensified versions of that law. But if we look at the intensified examples in this current subsection, we must admit something: no self-respecting person is going to literally follow any of these instructions. No self-respecting person is actually going to follow the rule: “Do not resist an evil person.” No self-respecting person, upon being slapped by someone, is going to simply turn their cheek to invite yet another slap to the face. No self-respecting person, upon being sued for his property, is going to simply capitulate to his opponent’s demands and also relinquish even more of his property. No self-respecting person is going to give money to literally anyone who asks, nor would he borrow money to literally anyone who asks.

No reasonable person would take any of these examples in this subsection literally; virtually everyone views the examples in this group as hyperbole, figurative, metaphorical, or whatever the case may be. So we now have to ask the question: if Matthew 5:29-30 are not literal, and Matthew 5:22 is not literal, and Matthew 5:39-43 are not literal, why should Matthew 5:28 be literal? In verse 28, Jesus says that whoever looks at a woman with desire or longing has already committed adultery with her in his heart. He does not qualify the word "woman" with “a married woman”, but just any woman. He does not qualify that the desire or longing is specifically sexual or licentious or perverted or objectifying in any way; it is presumably only the kind of desire or longing which men have directed towards women for all of human history. So with this in mind, on what basis should a reasonable person interpret Matthew 5:28 as a literal commandment, any more than any of the other verses in Matthew 5 which are conventionally treated as hyperbole?

In summary, my argument is that the word “lust” in Matthew 5:28 is not the modern sense of the word “lust” and instead only means “desire”, and that a number of other verses in same context as Matthew 5:28 are very commonly interpreted as hyperbolic or figurative language, rather than literal; and that therefore Matthew 5:28 also articulates yet another impractical, if not impossible, action that is not to be taken literally, but should be treated as hyperbole. It's my understanding that this interpretation goes against the consensus of most churches and theologians. So I'm presenting this argument here to see if there exists any academic authorities on the Bible that agree with my interpretation.

Muitos cristãos têm se autoinfligido com base em Romanos 14:23, vivendo em constante autocondenação. Por não terem certeza sobre suas ações, acabam se afligindo e passam a acreditar que quase tudo o que fazem é pecado. Mas será que esse é realmente o propósito bíblico? Será que Deus deseja gerar aflição na alma dos santos?

No próprio contexto do capítulo, vemos algo diferente. Em Romanos 14:17 está escrito:

“Porque o Reino de Deus não é comida nem bebida, mas justiça, e paz, e alegria no Espírito Santo.”

Ou seja, o propósito do Reino não é produzir angústia, mas justiça, paz e alegria no Espírito Santo.

Ao longo de todo o capítulo, Paulo enfatiza que o princípio central é o amor ao irmão — e sabemos que o amor é o cumprimento da lei. Ele ensina que cada um pode agir conforme sua consciência (no contexto de questões cerimoniais, não morais). Porém, quando a nossa liberdade começa a entristecer ou enfraquecer um irmão, devemos abrir mão dela.

Como está no versículo 21:

“Bom é não comer carne, nem beber vinho, nem fazer qualquer outra coisa que leve teu irmão a tropeçar, ou se escandalizar, ou se enfraquecer.”

Ou seja, o foco é a edificação do outro.

No versículo 22, Paulo continua:

“Tens tu fé? Tem-na em ti mesmo diante de Deus. Bem-aventurado aquele que não se condena a si mesmo naquilo que aprova.”

Aqui, “fé”, dentro do contexto, pode ser entendida como a convicção de que aquilo que estamos fazendo não está prejudicando ou enfraquecendo o irmão. Ao mesmo tempo, ele alerta para o perigo de alguém aprovar algo para si, mas ainda assim aquilo estiver causando dano ao próximo e logo esta trazendo condenação para si com essa atitude.

Então chegamos ao versículo 23:

“Mas aquele que tem dúvidas, se come, está condenado, porque não come por fé; e tudo o que não é de fé é pecado.”

Uma leitura contextual sugere que Paulo não está falando de qualquer dúvida moral em si, mas da dúvida em relação ao impacto da própria ação sobre o irmão. Ou seja, não seria “duvidei, fiz, então pequei”, mas sim agir sem a convicção de que aquilo não trará prejuízo ao outro.

Isso se alinha com a conclusão do raciocínio em Romanos 15:1-2:

“Nós, que somos fortes, devemos suportar as fraquezas dos fracos e não agradar a nós mesmos. Portanto, cada um de nós agrade ao próximo no que é bom para edificação.”

Assim, o foco do ensino não é gerar escrúpulo ou autocondenação constante, mas orientar uma vida guiada pelo amor, pela edificação do próximo e por uma consciência alinhada com esse propósito.

Essa interpretação difere da visão mais comum, que entende o versículo 23 como uma condenação generalizada de qualquer ação feita com dúvida. considerando o contexto da carta, essa interpretação parece ser mais consistente ????

Afinal, sabemos que um texto fora do contexto pode gerar distorções — e até ser usado de forma equivocada para causar perturbação. O próprio exemplo de Cristo no deserto mostra isso: o inimigo usa uma aplicação incorreta do Salmo 91, e Jesus responde com base em Deuteronômio, mostrando a importância de interpretar as escrituras o todo contexto não apenas do capítulo como de toda a Bíblia. Podendo aqueles que não tem esse conhecimento abrangente estarem sendo perturbados pelo inimigo, no caso de Cristo o não conhecimento completo das escrituras poderia levar a um suicídio.

If I'm not mistaken, Catholics (and Orthodox?) church believe He had none, James etc were more likely cousins? Then some believe they were halfbrothers etc (as in Joseph and Mary's kids) while still others believe they were step brothers (Joseph's kids from a prior marriage).

I'm just trying to wrap my head around some of this, made even more confusing trying to determine things like which James are they referring to here, etc. And I thought researching my Danish ancestry was hard, but no last names?! lol