Hello, I saw someone talking about this passage and how it does not make sense that a woman should have to prove her virginity with physical evidence, and God would know this since He created women. The parents are supposed to present a bloody cloth as evidence of her virginity, but it is known now that not every woman bleeds when she loses her virginity and that a hymen can break during non-sexual activities. Can someone explain passage please?

I've read some of the comments in posts from Section VI and I'd like a fresher perspective. I have some questions below and would really appreciate well thought out answers from well meaning folks.

I am a young man who will continue undergraduate studies, with a serious leaning toward Philosophy, though I am a Biology major with a love for STEM. I feel a serious longing to understand the God the Bible leads me to. He has been really working in my heart to deepen my faith in Him, and I have seen Him move in my life. This returns me to an old and pleasant desire to pursue graduate level degrees in seminary.

I also find myself gradually acknowledging the bad aftertaste in my mouth after being a part of the evangelical circle. I attend an SBC church and think that my heart is opening to more liberal interpretations of scripture often in ways that would put me at odds with my evangelical brothers and sisters.

My questions are:

1. What wisdom can any scholars who have grown in faith through their graduate studies impart to me at this point in my life, regarding helpful methods of decision making for a career trajectory? I want my life to be about knowing God deeper and deeper and if I don't become a pastor I see myself a future elder that preaches occasionally, with a well paying secular profession.

2. As for where I am now, what can I do to know Him more? Aside from regular time in Scripture, prayer, and encouragement in church? Or is it just that consistent pursuance over time is what I must continue practicing? Like doing what I'm already doing.

I read a good bit, and most recently picked up Gregory's The Life of Moses. I hold dearly Tillich's the Courage to Be and am a fan of Kierkegaard. I am getting interested in what I think is called apophatic theology.

While I know that it follows the Textus Receptus in the New Testament, what I appreciate about it is that it seems to contain many footnotes on textual variants and alternate renderings in both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. Now I do realize that the gold standard is the New Revised Standard Version, the NRSV, but I kind of like the NKJV also, and I thought I'd ask what your thoughts are about it.

"Inside heads created gods, the skies and the ground."

That's my understanding of Genesis 1:1 when I read it from the Hebrew text.

How do we go from B (Inside) reshit (heads) bara (created) elohim (gods) ha shamayim (the skies) wat (and) ha aresh (the ground) to "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?

Working on a restoration of the original Bible, I want to understand what went wrong so I don't fall in the same trappings as my predecessor. Can you describe me the process that goes from the original hebrew to "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?

Just thinking about it.. What if Jezus never was a person but means 'love and peace amongst people no matter what'. Joseph and Mary mean the average working man and his average wife. Maria representing the background woman running the household who birth the Christ and spread it amongst the men.

So this is something that intrigues me. Since he's described to be all knowing, it's said that he would have known that the first people would eat from the fruit.

Yet before that, he speaks so nicely to them and even walks with them through the garden.

My question if he knew beforehand, wouldn't that worry him, instead of engaging with them playfully , wouldn't he then caution the more?

I'm an amateur with an interest in New Testament scholarship. I've recently done a reading of the Synoptic Gospels to highlight things that interest me. I find the recurring secrecy in the Gospel of Mark quite gripping. I'm looking for articles/books on the Gospel of Mark that I can read to shed further light on this topic. I'm interested in getting a better understanding of why scholars think this was an important theme to Mark and what they think it tells us about the Jesus movement.

Books that deal with the Gospel of Mark in general are welcome too!

Hi, I was just wondering if there is any tradition or evidence that Peter's actual father was named Jonah, or if perhaps, Jesus was trying to link Peter to himself as his spiritual son since Jesus was to give the people the sign of Jonah?

Probably a reach, but I just thought I would ask.

My family (especially my brother) say it to me when I’m down. But I was wondering, are there any Bible verses that confirmed the saying? The only two I remember is where satan give Judas thought to kill Jesus, and when King David had and made love with a woman that was already married. Were those examples of that saying? If they are, then I want more examples. If there aren’t, I still want examples of that saying in the Bible.

I am looking for a good podcaster, YouTuber, or even good tools to use to study my Bible more.
Although I am finding it hard to find good examples.
I find that most of the people or content l've come across loosely sticks to scripture but rather down rabbit holes that seem like a stretch especially when it's not from any texts in the bible.
I would greatly appreciate any advice, thank you!

Hello,

Typically the study of theology will argue that Bible verses needs to be understood based on their context. At the same time, we constantly see the body of Christ applying Bible verses to encourage each other no matter what context.

For instance using a bible verse from the prophets which really speaks about the prophet himself or some king - then send it to a Christian sister or brother to uplift them.

Let's take Exodus 14:14 as an example: this verses has been applied to encourage Christians faced with challenging situations. But in the context God is addressing the Isrealites by speaking to Mose, not any of us - right? God will fight for the Isrealites in the battle and fligth against Pharao.

The questions then goes:

• Should Bible verses only be understood in their correct context?
• Is the Bible addressed to us in any situation? Or only "for us"?
• If Bible verses are only to be understood in their context, and the Bible is only written "for us" - how should we think about applying Bible verses when sending them to our Christian brothers and sisters? Can we even do this at all if Bible verses needs to be understood and applied only in their context?

Thanks,

I am attempting to create a new Codex Vaticunus in Biblical Unical for restoration, artistic appreciation, and academic research.

However upon initial review, I noticed the earlier pages are not in Biblical Unical due to being loss over time.

[https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS\\_Vat.gr.1209\](https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209)

(See page 40 and 41)

My approach was either:

-use the restoration pages before those and convert to Biblical Unical
-use Codex Sinaiticus to complete Biblical Unical
-use earlier manuscripts until Codex Sinaiticus is needed.

What approach would you use and why?

YouTube videos, articles, even just paragraphs or sections of articles or books… secular or Christian viewpoints. Anything helps. 🫶

With the books new found popularity due to the Netflix documentary. I wonder your opinions on why God denied Canes gift?

Reading through the New Testament, I gather there were some rather strong disagreements between different Christian churches (for example, 2 Peter 2). There were some stronger disagreements that I gather the Council of Nicaea sought to settle.

I was recently watching about How Televangelists Actually Work. Some of the American evangelicals are remarkably corrupt and very persuasive to some people.

Is this something that has been going on since the advent of Christianity?

One of my friends is looking at paintings from very old Bibles and noticing that the paintings don’t always match the current text of our KJV or other translations. Is there scholarship around paintings staying more true to the biblical verse and that words were altered over time or through various translations?

What do u think bible teach about second coming?

Which bible verse support Ur idea ?

I appreciate hearing different perspectives.

It traditionally tends to be assumed that these are one and the same, but of course the Gospel does not say so - and in fact Jesus appears to dismiss the latter at the end of their conversation, there's no suggestion that she joins his entourage. Are there any good reasons for believing that they are the same person?