u/TonyChanYT

Ex 4: >10 Moses said to the LORD, “Oh, my Lord, I am not eloquent, either in the past or since you have spoken to your servant, but I am slow of speech and of tongue.”

Ex 6: >30 Moses said to the LORD, “Behold, I am of uncircumcised lips. How will Pharaoh listen to me?”

It's a metaphor for tightly closed lips or restricted/impeded speech.

BSB: >But in the LORD’s presence Moses replied, “Since I am unskilled in speech, why would Pharaoh listen to me?”

Elsewhere, Lv 26: >41b If then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, 42 then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and I will remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land.

An uncircumcised heart was a metaphor for a stubborn heart, not opened to instructions. They needed to be broken and repent.

Dt 10: >16 Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked anymore.

Remove the blockage in your inner selves and stop being rebellious.

Stephen spoke to the religious leaders in Acts 7: >51 "You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!"

You had the physical ritual, but your hearts were blocked shut to God's message. The cure was not physical; it's spiritual.

Jer 6: >10 To whom shall I speak and give warning, that they may hear? Behold, their ears are uncircumcised, they cannot listen; behold, the word of the LORD is to them an object of scorn; they take no pleasure in it.

Uncircumcised ears did not listen to God.

Uncircumcision was a metaphor for spiritual blockage. It is unopened, unresponsive, or impeded. "Uncircumcised" referred to a closed organ that refused to open to spiritual discernment.

We need God to circumcise our ears, lips, and hearts, removing whatever obstructs us from hearing his word, speaking his truth, and responding to him, thereby making us more ready for spiritual growth.

u/GengerbreadMan, u/debaire, u/NoSeesaw9974

Mt 5: >45 He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

Define common grace as God's undeserved kindness and goodness shown to all people, not just those who believe in him. It is called "common" because it is given broadly to humanity, regardless of a person's faith or moral standing.

This idea is contrasted with saving (or special) grace, which is God's grace that brings a person to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

Common grace is for all people; special grace is only for believers.

Common grace is seen in the blessings of sunlight, rain, food, beauty, intelligence, creativity, scientific discovery, art, music, technological progress, etc. People have an innate sense of right and wrong, even if they do not know God personally. Non-Christians can perform acts of genuine kindness, wisdom, and justice.

>The “mercies” that are being given to the reprobates are for condemnation, so you couldn’t call that grace.

Sure, by that strange definition, it is not a grace of common grace. My definition is different.

>All the good things being showered to Earth is for the good of the saints, and not all people so their participation is only incidental/divinely permitted.

Sure, by that strange definition. However, Mt 5:45 says that the sun and rain are not incidentally received by the wicked because God happens to be blessing the righteous. Jesus explicitly presents God's treatment of the evil and unrighteous as an example of God's generosity.

>All blessings are due to our union with Christ, no one mediates with reprobates so you couldn’t really reconcile the idea of common grace.

This confuses saving blessings with providential blessings. You need to reconcile that strange definition with Ro 2: >4 Do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?

God's kindness applies to recipients who abuse it and consequently incurs greater judgment.

If you define grace as favor toward only those united to Christ, then there is no "common grace." But that definition simply excludes the doctrine by definition. If you say that there is no common grace, you need to reconcile that with what Jesus said in Mt 5:45.

u/Global-Volume9111, u/Honesty_Room, u/Ok_Zone_2930

Gn 5: >1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. … 3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. … 6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he fathered Enosh.

Genealogies established historical continuity from the first man.

Genesis traced the line: Adam → Seth → Noah → Shem → Terah → Abraham → Isaac → Jacob → Judah.

Genealogies identified who belonged to the covenant line.

1 Chronicles 1–9 contained the longest continuous genealogical record in the entire Bible.

1. From Adam to Abraham
2. The sons of Israel
3. The descendants of David, Solomon, the royal line after the exile
4. The descendants of Judah, Simeon
5. The descendants of Reuben, Gad
6. The descendants of Levi, Aaron
7. The descendants of Issachar, Benjamin, Naphtali, Manasseh, Ephraim
8. The Descendants of Asher, the family of Saul 9: The post-exilic community in Jerusalem

The Chronicler wrote this after the Jews had returned from the 70-year exile in Babylon. The nation was decimated, the temple was destroyed, and the monarchy was gone. The people were asking: “Are we still God’s chosen people? The genealogies answered that question with a resounding “Yes” by proving that they were descendants of Abraham.

When the temple was rebuilt, you couldn't just let anyone serve as a priest. You had to prove your lineage. These genealogies served as a legal and religious "ID card" to prove who was qualified to offer sacrifices and serve in the temple. Ezra 2:62 said that some priests were excluded from the priesthood because they could not establish their genealogy.

The biblical genealogies repeatedly demonstrate that God preserves His purposes through generations of imperfect human beings.

For Christians, the most important genealogies were the ones in Mt 1 and Lk 3. They traced Jesus' ancestry to David. The Messiah was a son of David.

1T 1: >4 Nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith.

Some teachers were apparently becoming fascinated with Jewish traditions, speculative stories, and elaborate genealogical questions. Paul called them “endless” because they could generate endless questions without producing spiritual benefit. The problem is not genealogy; it is the wild speculation about it.

Biblical genealogies are not merely lists of names. They establish historical continuity, covenantal identity, legitimate inheritance and priesthood, and ultimately the Davidic lineage of Jesus Christ.

u/Mysterious-Loan-5065, u/Top_Initiative_4047

John 6: >2 A large crowd kept following him because they saw the signs that he was doing for the sick.

I.e., Jesus healed the sick to prove that he was sent by God.

Similarly, for the disciples, Matthew 10: >1 Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.

The apostles healed many in Acts 5: >15b People brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by. 16Crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing their sick and those tormented by impure spirits, and all of them were healed.

And for Paul, Acts 19: >12 so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.

Paul healed many in Malta. Ac 28: >8 The father of Publius was sick in bed, suffering from fever and dysentery. Paul went in to see him, and after praying and placing his hands on him, he healed the man. 9 After this had happened, the rest of the sick on the island came and were cured as well.

All of the above healings show that they were sent by God. Miracles are often signs to demonstrate something. In the last case, it showed that Paul was an apostle.

Later, however, Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 5: >23 Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.

Paul didn't send Timothy his handkerchief to heal him. The healing miracles/signs were no longer associated with him.

More generally, individual believers could be gifted. 1 Corinthians 12: >8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit.

Should we pray for healing?

Yes, today, I believe God still heals supernaturally through faith at times, but at other times, he uses doctors.

When God heals miraculously, he is proving a point. It is a sign, Mark 16: > 17 these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Jesus mentioned that some of his messengers would be supernaturally protected as they carry out their mission, even when they encounter dangers such as snakes or poison. He is not commanding every believer to seek out those dangers.

James 5: >14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

Having prayed, it is not always God's will to heal everyone.

There was a special case of healing: Jesus healed a Canaanite woman's daughter because of her persistence. We cannot demand God to heal, but we can keep asking with faith.

Another unusual case was a woman who suffered from bleeding for 12 years. She was healed by touching Jesus' garment with faith (Mt 9:22).

Is faith healing for today?

On the healers' side, some followers of Jesus were given the power to heal as a sign of their God-given authority. Peter and Paul were apostles. Not every apostle was a healer. These people were extremely rare, then and now.

On the patients' side, some special cases of believers received what they faithfully asked for. This was between the patients and God. We have to distinguish between our wishful thinking and our faithful thinking with peace. Like other kinds of miracles, supernatural healing cannot be systematized. We need to consider them on a case-by-case basis.

Can we claim healing as some prosperity preachers practice?

No. Back then, God used healings as signs to support the apostles' authority as those sent by God. Even then, no one can demand or claim healings. Healings have special significance for the healers and patients then and now.

Should we seek cures only from physicians?

No. 2 Chronicles 16: >12 In the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa was afflicted with a disease in his feet. Though his disease was severe, even in his illness he did not seek help from the LORD, but only from the physicians.

Particularly in our present day of advanced medical knowledge, we can seek both God and physicians. Say a prayer before taking your medicine.

See also

• Miracles are signs

u/fludofrogs, u/kyloren1217

What did the Bible say about the death penalty?

u/Puzzleheaded_Set8604, u/Sawfish1212, u/1stPeter3-15, u/Disastrous_Cat3912

Moses prescribed the death penalty in Exodus 21: >12 Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.

Human life has extraordinary value because human beings bear God's image.

Acts 25: >11 If however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die.

If I am guilty of death, then let them execute me. Paul was okay with capital punishment for himself.

>But if there is nothing to their charges against me, no one can give me up to them. I appeal to Caesar.

Paul simultaneously affirmed the legitimacy of capital punishment and insisted upon due process and proof of guilt.

The OT affirmed capital punishment. The NT does not explicitly abolish capital punishment.

Ro 12: >19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God.

May the state execute someone who commits a capital crime?

The Bible supports the legitimacy of governmental capital punishment.

May an individual Christian personally kill someone who deserves death?

No, leave it to God. We are commanded to love.

Human life is sacred. Murder is extraordinarily serious. Civil authority may impose severe punishment, including death, but guilt must be established through proper justice. Individuals must not take vengeance. Christians are called to show mercy and forgiveness.

See also

• Was the death sentence always carried out in the OT?

u/Mysterious-Loan-5065, u/Top_Initiative_4047

John 6: >2 A large crowd kept following him because they saw the signs that he was doing for the sick.

I.e., Jesus healed the sick to prove that he was sent by God.

Similarly, for the disciples, Matthew 10: >1 Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.

The apostles healed many in Acts 5: >15b People brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by. 16Crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing their sick and those tormented by impure spirits, and all of them were healed.

And for Paul, Acts 19: >12 so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.

Paul healed many in Malta. Ac 28: >8 The father of Publius was sick in bed, suffering from fever and dysentery. Paul went in to see him, and after praying and placing his hands on him, he healed the man. 9 After this had happened, the rest of the sick on the island came and were cured as well.

All of the above healings show that they were sent by God. Miracles are often signs to demonstrate something. In the last case, it showed that Paul was an apostle.

Later, however, Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 5: >23 Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.

Paul didn't send Timothy his handkerchief to heal him. The healing miracles/signs were no longer associated with him.

More generally, individual believers could be gifted. 1 Corinthians 12: >8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit.

Should we pray for healing?

Yes, today, I believe God still heals supernaturally through faith at times, but at other times, he uses doctors.

When God heals miraculously, he is proving a point. It is a sign, Mark 16: > 17 these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Jesus mentioned that some of his messengers would be supernaturally protected as they carry out their mission, even when they encounter dangers such as snakes or poison. He is not commanding every believer to seek out those dangers.

James 5: >14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

Having prayed, it is not always God's will to heal everyone.

There was a special case of healing: Jesus healed a Canaanite woman's daughter because of her persistence. We cannot demand God to heal, but we can keep asking with faith.

Another unusual case was a woman who suffered from bleeding for 12 years. She was healed by touching Jesus' garment with faith (Mt 9:22).

Is faith healing for today?

On the healers' side, some followers of Jesus were given the power to heal as a sign of their God-given authority. Peter and Paul were apostles. Not every apostle was a healer. These people were extremely rare, then and now.

On the patients' side, some special cases of believers received what they faithfully asked for. This was between the patients and God. We have to distinguish between our wishful thinking and our faithful thinking with peace. Like other kinds of miracles, supernatural healing cannot be systematized. We need to consider them on a case-by-case basis.

Can we claim healing as some prosperity preachers practice?

No. Back then, God used healings as signs to support the apostles' authority as those sent by God. Even then, no one can demand or claim healings. Healings have special significance for the healers and patients then and now.

Should we seek cures only from physicians?

No. 2 Chronicles 16: >12 In the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa was afflicted with a disease in his feet. Though his disease was severe, even in his illness he did not seek help from the LORD, but only from the physicians.

Particularly in our present day of advanced medical knowledge, we can seek both God and physicians. Say a prayer before taking your medicine.

See also

• Miracles are signs

u/Global-Volume9111, u/Electronic_Half_7107, u/MichaelWhitehead

Ex 3: >2 There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.

What is the significance of the burning bush?

The burning bush was a sign to convince Moses. It was a theophany, a visible manifestation of God.

The miracle of the bush burning but not being consumed was a sign of God's supernatural power. It demonstrated that God was not limited by the natural laws of the physical world and was self-sustaining. Normally, fire consumed what it burned. But here the bush remained. The fire appeared to be self-sustaining rather than dependent on the fuel of the bush. This paradox symbolized God's fiery, eternal nature.

>5 Then he said, "Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground."

The fire represented God's holy, transcendent presence. Moses was not merely encountering an unusual natural phenomenon; he was encountering God.

>6 And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.

The burning bush symbolized the God of Abraham.

God declared: >14 “I AM WHO I AM”.

He was the self-existing, self-substaining one.

Ex 13: >21 The Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them along the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night. 22 The pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night did not depart from before the people.

Fire connected with God's presence and guidance of providing light.

On the other hand, Dt 9: >3 But understand that today the LORD your God goes across ahead of you as a consuming fire; He will destroy them and subdue them before you. And you will drive them out and annihilate them swiftly, as the LORD has promised you.

Hb 12: >29 For our God is a consuming fire.

Moses saw the burning bush; yet the bush was not consumed. However, to God's enemy, he was a consuming fire. God was being gracious to Moses.

The burning bush is a symbol of God's holiness, presence, power, and eternal nature.

Jesus fasted in Luke 4: >1 And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness 2 for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry.

John's disciples fasted, Matthew 9: >14 Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast [G3522], but your disciples do not fast?” 15 And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.

G3522. νηστεύω (nésteuó) occurs 20 times.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon: > to abstain as a religious exercise from food and drink

Fasting and prayer are often paired on special occasions, Acts 13: >2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

It is not just prayer but fasting to humble ourselves before an important decision. Fasting served to intensify prayer.

Acts 14: >23 Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.

In both cases, the disciples fasted before making important appointments with long-reaching consequences. Fasting solemnizes the souls to listen to God.

Strictly speaking, G3522-fast had to do with food and drink. Metaphorically, it could be expanded. Corinthians 7: >5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Are Christians required to fast today?

There is no commandment requiring a Christian to fast. However, you can choose to fast on some special occasions, such as during Lent. Let your conscience guide you in this.

I feel like I’ll never get my miracle because I can’t fast good enough?

You cannot demand a miracle by fasting. You volunteer to fast out of your own humble heart to focus on God. Jesus mentioned an unrighteous Pharisee fasted twice a week (Lk 18:12).

See also

• Didache on baptism
• Fasting in the OT

u/RepulsiveAd7799, u/groundhogcow, u/groundhogcow

Jesus fasted in Luke 4: >1 And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness 2 for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry.

John's disciples fasted, Matthew 9: >14 Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast [G3522], but your disciples do not fast?” 15 And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.

G3522. νηστεύω (nésteuó) occurs 20 times.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon: > to abstain as a religious exercise from food and drink

Fasting and prayer are often paired on special occasions, Acts 13: >2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

It is not just prayer but fasting to humble ourselves before an important decision. Fasting served to intensify prayer.

Acts 14: >23 Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.

In both cases, the disciples fasted before making important appointments with long-reaching consequences. Fasting solemnizes the souls to listen to God.

Strictly speaking, G3522-fast had to do with food and drink. Metaphorically, it could be expanded. Corinthians 7: >5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Are Christians required to fast today?

There is no commandment requiring a Christian to fast. However, you can choose to fast on some special occasions, such as during Lent. Let your conscience guide you in this.

I feel like I’ll never get my miracle because I can’t fast good enough?

You cannot demand a miracle by fasting. You volunteer to fast out of your own humble heart to focus on God. Jesus mentioned an unrighteous Pharisee fasted twice a week (Lk 18:12).

See also

• Didache on baptism
• Fasting in the OT

u/Overall-Youth9088, u/garbojax, u/DarkLordTwilightZone_S2_E29

Yes, if you believe their worldview. No, if you believe in Paul's worldview. The same can be said about qigong, tai chi, karate, etc.

Make sure you hold on to 1C 8: >4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

If a Christian performs a yoga stretch simply as physical exercise, without invoking Hindu deities, affirming Hindu theology, or treating the exercise as spiritual communion with another god, it is not a sin.

If a particular yoga practice incorporates mantras, the invocation of deities, ritual worship, or religious meditation intended to unite oneself with a divine reality, then the situation is substantially different. A Christian should not participate in the religious act merely because it is packaged as “exercise.”

If your spiritual conscience is weak or insecure, I advise against Yoga. Try some neutral fitness exercises instead. Personally, I have tried Yoga, tai chi, karate, etc., but I don't practice any of them. I practice Ps 1: >2 But his delight is in the Law of the LORD, and on His law he meditates day and night.

Should Christians bow down before other gods?

No, Ex 23: >24 Do not bow down before their gods or worship them or follow their practices. You must demolish them and break their sacred stones to pieces.

Still, there was an exception, according to Elisha in 2 Kings 5: >17 Then Naaman said, “If not, please let there be given to your servant two mule loads of earth, for from now on your servant will not offer burnt offering or sacrifice to any god but the LORD. 18In this matter may the LORD pardon your servant: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, leaning on my arm, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon your servant in this matter.” 19 He said to him, “Go in peace.”

An outward bodily posture does not necessarily reveal the spiritual meaning of the action. Naaman wasn't worshipping as far as he was concerned. An unavoidable outward gesture does not necessarily constitute worship when the heart is devoted exclusively to Yahweh. That distinction is very useful when thinking about yoga, tai chi, qigong, meditation, martial arts, and similar practices.

The Christian need not fear every physical practice used by another religion. But neither should the Christian naively participate in religious practices whose purpose is, in fact, communion with another spiritual reality. The decisive issues are worship, participation, faith, conscience, and the effect on others, not merely the physical posture or movement itself. Consult the Paraclete dwelling in you. Do you have the Paracletic peace about it?

See also

• Is it okay to empty for mind when meditating?

Watchman Nee, The Spiritual Man: >The spirit cannot itself act upon the body; it can only do so through the medium of the soul.

Agree.

>This we can see in Luke 1.46-47: “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior” (Darby). “Here the change in tense shows that the spirit first conceived joy in God, and then, communicating with the soul, caused it to give expression to the feeling by means of the bodily organ.”

Chinese original >“我的魂尊（现今式）主为大，我的灵曾（完全过去式）在神我的救主里喜乐。”这里原文时式的改变，就是表明灵当先（曾）喜乐，后来魂才尊主为大。

While I agree overall, the Greek was a bit more nuanced.

ESV, Lk 1: >46 And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord,

magnifies
Μεγαλύνει (Megalynei)
Verb - Present Indicative Active - 3rd Person Singular
Strong's 3170: (a) I enlarge, lengthen, (b) I increase, magnify, extol. From megas; to make great, i.e. Increase or extol.

>47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

rejoices
ἠγαλλίασεν (ēgalliasen)
Verb - Aorist Indicative Active - 3rd Person Singular
Strong's 21: To exult, be full of joy. From agan and hallomai; properly, to jump for joy, i.e. Exult.

ESV decided to translate both the present and aorist tenses into the English present tense because of the indicative mood and the parallelism.

Greek tense was fundamentally about aspect, not simply past/present time. The aorist aspect did not necessarily mean that Mary's rejoicing happened before her magnifying the Lord.

Present aspect: the action was viewed as ongoing, unfolding, or in progress.
Aorist aspect: the action was viewed as a complete whole, without focusing on its internal development.

RcV: Lk 1: >Mary said, My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 And my spirit has exulted in God my Savior.

Was the perfect tense justified grammatically?

I think so. In this case, the aorist aspect suggested a temporal ordering with a previous (parallel) verb "magnifies".

>48 Because He has looked upon the low estate of His slave. For behold, from now on all generations will count me blessed,

That's a second Aorist Indicative Active.

ESV: >48 for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.

Now, ESV translated this follow-up aorist as a perfect tense, even though it translated the first aorist as a present tense. There was a bit of inconsistency for ESV here.

In this passage, RcV's rendering was more consistent grammatically.

Theologically, I agree with Nee that the spiritual aspect comes before the emotional aspect. That's what Mary experienced when she burst forth into her song. The spirit had apprehended and exulted; then, the soul expressed bodily and magnified the Lord.

u/Tasty_Finger9696, u/Traditional_Rate5322

Dr William Lane Craig wrote: >Is it possible to add a new integer to the series of natural numbers? Of course not, for the natural number series is determinate and complete.

Bold emphases added.

Mathematically, a series is the sum of the terms of a sequence. The natural number series diverges to infinity. This means that as you add more terms, the sum grows larger and larger without approaching any finite limit. I have no idea what he means by "the natural number series is complete". I label this as nonsense because I cannot make any logical sense of it. Generally, mathematicians define infinity as a process to calculate a limit as it approaches infinity rather than as an actualized completed entity. I don't think Dr Craig knew how mathematicians formally handle infinitities. If not, you should not have talked about it as if he knew.

Further, when I first read the above question, I experienced dissonance in the anterior cingulate cortex. His question made no sense to me. If you use math terminology, it is better to stick to the technical definitions.

Now, the question becomes: >Is it possible to insert a new integer into the sequence of natural numbers?

Yes, if the sequence is finite. A sequence is not a set.

But I don't think that's what Craig had in mind.

Let i1 be a natural number. Is it possible to append i1 to the infinite sequence of all natural numbers, such that i1 has not appeared before?

No, by definition.

Perhaps that wasn't what Craig had in mind either.

Finally, is it possible to add (i.e., adjoin) a new natural number to the set of all natural numbers, thereby changing its cardinality?

No. I think Craig also had trouble distinguishing different orders of infinities as defined by Cantor.

Craig conflated the math concepts of series with sequence—and probably with the concept of set too. By misusing terminology, Craig risked confusing readers and weakening the rigor of his reasoning. When the mathematical terminology is itself part of the argument, technical terms need to be used accurately. A philosopher does not have the license to abuse math terms.

In 2025, I showed up at Craig's forum and debated people there until they banned me. I invited Dr. Craig to show up and argue with me on my subreddit. He never showed up, probably because he couldn't understand the rules of engagement here. His philosophical language lacks formal precision while using math terms. See Rule #1.

u/PersonalBet7880

Cain murdered his brother. God punished him in Gn 4: >12 "When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.”

God did not kill Cain on the spot. On the other hand, Onan practiced coitus interruptus. God punished him in Gn 38: > 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother’s wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother.

He was exploiting the situation for his own pleasure while denying Tamar the protection and security of children, which was her right under their laws and customs. He wanted the pleasure but refused the responsibility.

>10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death.

Cain took his brother's life but God preserved Cain's life.
Onan refused to preserve his brother's name/line, and God took Onan's life.

Neither man received the penalty we might instinctively expect from our own sense of proportionality.

Why did God judge Cain and Onan so differently?

Onan didn't know it, but the Messiah was supposed to come from his father, Judah. For refusing to cooperate in this matter, God killed him. God is sovereign. He did what he saw fit.

See also

• What was the sin of Onan?

Levirate marriage is when a man's brother is obliged to marry his brother's widow. It was practiced in the Ancient Near East, Asia, India, etc.

In God's mind/sight, the Messiah was supposed to come from Judah. Genesis 38: >6 Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD put him to death. 8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.”

That was Onan's levirate duty. Jesus could have been a descendant of Onan, but Onan did not cooperate. He missed his big chance to be in the lineage of the Messiah.

>9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother’s wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother.

Onan did have intercourse with Tamar, but deliberately prevented the conception of a child who would be reckoned as his deceased brother Er's offspring. That wasn't masturbation but coitus interruptus.

>10 And what he did was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and he put him to death also.

The Lord put Onan to death because he refused to impregnate his dead brother's wife.

Onan's refusal did not prevent the Messianic line from continuing. After Onan died, Judah eventually fathered Perez by Tamar, and Perez became the ancestor of David and ultimately Jesus.

What was the sin of Onan?

It wasn't masturbation. It wasn't the practice of coitus interruptus. Specifically, Onan sinned for refusing his levirate duty. His sin was fundamentally one of deliberate refusal, selfishness, and violation of his familial duty.

See also

• Why did God punish Cain and Onan so differently?.

u/bluestarpanda

ESV, Ac 22: >12 One Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, 13came to me, and standing by me said to me, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight.’ And at that very hour I received my sight and saw him. 14 And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; 15 for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

ESV translated this passage with a nice, natural flow in English. Note the prepositions.

On Biblehub, 24 versions used "a witness for him".

New International Version: >15 You will be his witness to all people of what you have seen and heard.

On Biblehub, 25 versions used "his witness".

RcV: >For you will be a witness to Him unto all men of the things which you have seen and heard.

On Biblehub, no version used "witness to Him".

Why did RcV translate it as such?

His
αὐτῷ (autō)
Personal / Possessive Pronoun - Dative Masculine 3rd Person Singular
Strong's 846: He, she, it, they, them, same. From the particle au; the reflexive pronoun self, used of the third person, and of the other persons.

witness
μάρτυς (martys)
Noun - Nominative Masculine Singular
Strong's 3144: A witness (judicially) or figuratively (genitive case); by analogy, a 'martyr'.

αὐτῷ was a possessive pronoun. 25 versions translated as "his witness".

αὐτῷ was the dative singular of αὐτός (autos), referring to Jesus. The Greek dative does not have one fixed English equivalent. Depending on context, it can be rendered to, for, by, with, etc; 24 versions used "for".

RcV was the only one that used "to". It is justified on grammatical grounds. Further, the context also justified it. Look at the prepositions leading to v. 15. It has a nice ring to it :)

Now, "witness to Him” has an interesting theological nuance. The phrase can mean more than merely testifying about Jesus. Paul was a witness to Jesus Himself. He stood before others as one who had encountered Christ and testified concerning what Christ had revealed to him. This fits the immediate context particularly well. The phrase "to him" is more personal than "for him".

While other versions read more easily in v 15, for my taste, RcV outdid other versions on this one :)

u/No-Faithlessness4129

RcV, Mt 25: >1 At that time the kingdom of the heavens will be likened to ten virgins, who took their lamps and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

Strong's Greek: 5222. ὑπάντησις (hupantésis) — 3 Occurrences

>2 And five of them were foolish and five were prudent. 3 For the foolish, when they took their lamps, did not take oil with them; 4 But the prudent took oil in their vessels with their lamps. 5 And while the bridegroom delayed, they all became drowsy and slept. 6 But at midnight there was a cry, Behold, the bridegroom! Go forth to meet him!

Strong's Greek: 529. ἀπάντησις (apantésis) — 3 Occurrences

Footnote: > A word different from meet in v. 1. The word in v. 1 refers to meeting someone alone and in secret, whereas the word here refers to meeting someone openly according to plan and ceremony.

In v. 1, 10 virgins go forth to meet the bridegroom. They are not alone and in secret. The Recovery Version footnote introduced a semantic distinction that wasn't supported by the lexical evidence.

BDAG ὑπάντησις: coming to meet, to meet someone, in a positive sense

BDAG does not support the claim that ὑπάντησις inherently means a "secret" or "alone" meeting. This part of the footnote is not justified lexically.

BDAG ἀπάντησις: to meet, LXX freq. in friendly and hostile mng.

The lexical meanings of these two words overlap substantially.

ἀπάντησις does occur in contexts where people go out to meet an arriving person, as a welcoming party (Ac 28:15, 1Th 4:17). There is some justification for the second half of the footnote.

Why did Matthew use two different words for 'meet' in this passage?

Matthew used two different words to mark the two stages of the narrative. The virgins initially go out toward the bridegroom (ὑπάντησις, v 1), but when the bridegroom actually arrives, the announcement calls them to go out to meet him (ἀπάντησις, v 6). That change of vocabulary was deliberate, but I wouldn't press their semantic distinction too much. Matthew might have changed the wording for stylistic contrast rather than for semantic reasons.

u/Radiant_Sprinkles540, u/Greedy_Net_1803, u/FearanTrembling

While we are alive,

1. lovingly tell them about Jesus,
2. pray for their salvation,
3. trust in God that, in the end, he will do what is righteous concerning them.

When I have done the above, I feel peaceful.

You can't enjoy heaven if you don't trust God to do what's right. I trust God will do the right things for non-believers. I know that I will enjoy heaven, Isaiah 65: >17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

We will still have our memories, which are part of our identity. But they won't trouble our minds like some of the memories do today. We will be healed from all our bad memories:

Revelation 21: >4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

The glory of the new creation will be so overwhelming that, like a child who forgets yesterday’s nightmare in the morning sunshine, we will cease to dwell on the old bad experiences. The promise is not mind-wipe but pain-wipe: nothing in the new heavens and new earth will be allowed to diminish the fullness of joy that God gives his redeemed.

See also

• Worries about the new heaven and earth?
• Does the Bible teach conscious torment over an infinite period of time?

u/MickyMac00

After Jacob wrestled with a mysterious (M1) figure, M1 said to him in Gn 32: >27 “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.” 28 Then he said, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.” 29 Then Jacob asked him, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And there he blessed him. 30 So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.”

M1 was God. I believe M1 was the preexisting Christ. He didn't reveal his name; instead, the Son of God changed Jacob's name to Israel.

Three chapters later, Gn 35: >9 God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Paddan-aram, and blessed him. 10 And God said to him, “Your name is Jacob; no longer shall your name be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name.” So he called his name Israel.

This time, God the Father renamed Jacob to Israel to confirm his new name.

Ps 79: >9 Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of your name; deliver us, and atone for our sins, for your name’s sake!

I.e., the name of the Son of God.

Jn 8: >58 Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.’

Jesus existed before Abraham did, as the Great I-AM.

Php 2: >8 Being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The name "Jesus Christ" is above every name.

Jacob wrestled with whom?

Jacob wrestled with the preincarnate Jesus. The event was a Christophany in the OT. He kept his name secret but changed Jacob's name to Israel.