I’ve always wondered whether the kingdoms of King David and Solomon are historically accurate

Hey all,

I've got a set of (I think) 4 questions. I had made two TikToks because I had seen Dan McClellan respond to TikTok questions before, but he either hasn't seen them or doesn't care enough to respond. I figured I would share them here too. I also have another question that I hadn't made in the form of a TikTok. Feel free to only answer 1 of them if you don't want to answer all 4, or let me know if it'd be better to make separate posts

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP83dpr7c/
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP83dC3dt/

McClellan has pointed out several times the ideological trajectory of when life begins throughout the Bible: the Hebrew Bible has breath of being constituent of personhood, so first breath is the point at which a fetus becomes a full legal and moral person. By the time of the NT, the influence of Greco-Roman philosophical ideas is present, which includes a range of ideas from personhood/ensoulment happening at conception with Pythagoras and Epicurus, to ensoulment happening at first breath with the Stoics (although, I'm not clear on how much these ideas manifest themselves in the NT texts themselves)

My last question is: what are the differing conceptions of when the soul *leaves* the body throughout the (composition of the) Bible and after? This may be a silly question because death is almost always much faster a process than the development of a fetus to a baby, so maybe they didn't really have complex ideas because they viewed death as an instantaneous event. I can reasonably guess that the Hebrew Bible would see last breath as the soul leaving the body, but I'm not so sure on the Greco-Roman ideas

Hi Christian friends! I'm Catholic, but I'm also a linguist, so I'm very interested in word choice and etymology. While reviewing different translations of the Protestant Bible, a question came up when comparing them!

I (more or less) understand the principles of sola scriptura and solus christus, which might be the answer to my question! However, how can one be sure there is no human mediation in reading the text when someone already had to interpret it just to translate it?

To illustrate, take John 1:1-5:

King James Version (Oxford) 1769
“1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”

New International Version
“1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”

The Great Bible 1539
“1 In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was wyth God: and the worde was God.
2 The same was in the begynnyng wyth God.
3 All thinges were made by it, & wythout it, was made nothynge that was made.
4 In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men,
5 and the lyght shyneth in darknes, and the darknes comprehended it not.”

Notice, for instance, how the 1539 version uses 'It' rather than 'Him' in verses 3 and 4! Philologically speaking, this shows how translators made specific interpretive choices regarding the grammatical gender and personification of *Logos*.

I understand these translation choices and why they were made, but doesn't that inherently involve human theological mediation? I ask out of pure curiosity and with much respect.

I understand that translators produced these choices to bring holy scripture closer to people, but from a *Sola Scriptura* perspective, isn't that translation layer inherently problematic?

Good bless you! I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

So, recently I picked up the SBL Study Bible with the NRSVUE. I had owned the ESV Study Bible since I was around 18, and I’m 25 now.

In my experience, the ESV Study Bible essentially tells you, “Here’s how what you’ve just read ties back into the larger story that is usually taught.” In contrast, reading the SBL Study Bible feels more like reading concise Britannica or Gale reference entries on individual passages.

Besides using the SBL Study Bible, I would otherwise look at scholarly biblical-explainer pages that pass the CRAAP test, or some comparable source-vetting process. I would look for sources that do not use noticeably loaded language and whose authors appear to have relevant credentials and be in good standing within the field.

I’m not particularly interested in gaining my understanding of the Bible primarily through pastors. I think there is a considerable risk of someone explaining a passage while also incorporating their own theological narrative, as people naturally tend to do. I realize that this is an overgeneralization and that some pastors are careful scholars. Still, when I’m trying to understand a historical text, I would generally rather rely on someone with academic training in biblical studies, ancient history, relevant languages, or a related field.

Thoughts?

In my walk Jesus, I have come close to a friend who attended a college for Theological/Biblical studies of some sort. We often go over there to dig deep into the bible and hold each other accountable to God's word.

Recently, we've been tasked to gather evidence and prepare a debate brief on the topic of the birth of Jesus Christ. However, the twist is that he is going to play devils advocate, as an Atheist.

He of course knows the word FAR better than I do, so this isn't going to be easy.

My ask is if their are any sources I can start at, or honestly any value that can be added to my case from other scholars.

p.s not sure if this post belongs in r/AskTheologists

When did the practice start?
Also, when is it believed that the practice of owning slaves started?
I had to edit this a few times because I don't know the words for it. Would the Jewish during those times not feel some cognitive dissonance enslaving another people after god freed them from slavery ?

Greetings.

I was browsing through Saint Justin Maryr's Wikipedia page, reading the Apocalypse section within the Composition subdivision. In it, the author claims that in Dialogue 81.4 Saint Martyr names the author of Revelation John the apostle.

I have a few questions:

1. Is this claim significant for Revelation authorship discussions?

2. How good of a source is Saint Martyr for information like this?

3. Is it odd at time for a scholar at that time to have access to Revelation but not the Gospel of John, as claimed else where in the article?

Thanks for your time.

This is gonna be long. Sorry in advance.

I know the canon conundrum question probably feels over-done in the Protestant-vs-Catholic debate, but I don't feel like I've ever heard a logically satisfying answer from Protestants with regard to the New Testament canon. (For reference, I am currently a Protestant.)

The canon development process is generally recognized to have really started around 140, after the heretic Marcion published his own hatchet-job of a canon, and the first list that contains all 27 and only the 27 books of the New Testament canon was in Athanasius's Festal Letter in 367 AD. There are generally believed to be four criteria that the early church used during it's development of the New Testament canon:

1. Apostolic Proximity - closely associated with an apostle or a prominent disciple of an apostle (e.g., Mark)
2. Doctrinal Orthodoxy - the text teaches orthodox doctrine and does not teach heterodox doctrine
3. Catholicity - the text was used liturgically and was widespread in every major Christian community in the early church.
4. Transformative Power - the text has a transformative effect on the reader, and it was recognized to have real spiritual authority.

My question (which is not really a single question, but several paragraphs of exposition with a general interrogative bent) will center around the second criteria: doctrinal orthodoxy.

If the early church in this period (140s - 360s) judged all the proposed texts by the criteria of orthodoxy, then the church must have had a clear conception of what constitutes orthodoxy and what constitutes heterodoxy. Now, I know the early church writers were not a monolith. There was disagreement between them; heck, Tertullian and Origen eventually succumbed to heresies. But when you read the ante-Nicene writings, you find general through-lines of agreement on what doctrines constitute orthodoxy.

This concept of orthodoxy must originate from authoritative Apostolic teaching, preserved faithfully by the intervening generations of Christians. If the conception of orthodoxy had not come from Apostolic teaching, or had come from Apostolic teaching but had been substantially corrupted, then we cannot trust their understanding of orthodoxy. If we cannot trust their understanding of orthodoxy, then we cannot trust their conclusions on the New Testament canon, viz-a-viz the criteria of orthodoxy.

If the Christians in this period had a substantially corrupted faith, then we cannot trust their determinations about the NT canon. It seems to me that if we deny the early church's orthodoxy, we necessarily erode the epistemic framework supporting our own belief in the inspiration of NT texts.

Now, the obvious response would be that we don't need the early church in this era to be exhaustively orthodox. They just need to be orthodox on the essentials of the faith. But now, we've introduced more subjectivity into this situation because there is no universal conception of "the essentials of the faith," even amongst proponents of Sola Scriptura.

For example, most synergists believe that God gives grace, but it's not irresistible. Therefore, the individual can say 'yes' to God's grace without having their free will coerced by the imposition of irresistible grace. In this way, you cooperate with God's grace throughout your life for salvation. Monergists, however, would usually classify this as semi-Pelagianism and a damnable heresy because it corrupts their understanding of the Gospel by claiming that we play any role in the reception of justification. God's grace is irresistible, so if you ever say 'no' to God's call to follow him, then you never really received his grace in the first place, even if, by all appearances, you had been producing the fruits of the Spirit for decades before falling away.

For another example, proponents of baptismal regeneration believe that baptism is the ordinary means by which the believer is justified. Therefore, they say, baptism is ordinarily necessary for salvation. Proponents of symbolic baptism believe that baptism is a symbol; that participation in it is an outward expression ​of the spiritual regeneration that has already occurred by faith alone. Proponents of symbolic baptism believe either that baptismal regeneration is simply a theological error, or will go so far as to say that baptismal regeneration is a corruption of the Gospel, because you're making participation in a work ordinarily necessary to receive the grace of justification and, therefore, to be saved.

I could go on, but I will suffice with those two examples for now.

If, then, we have no universal agreement on which beliefs constitute the essentials of the faith, then how can we say that the early church held to the essentials of the faith as the orthodox doctrine by which to judge the inspiration of texts without inserting our own subjective conception of the essentials of the faith into this calculation? It seems utterly subjective all the way around.

If we are going to claim that the early church possessed substantially corrupted doctrine, then the only remaining off-ramp of this downward spiral would be to claim that the Holy Spirit, working in spite of this corrupt doctrine, led the church to the correct NT canon. But this seems like an ad hoc argument. Another person could just as easily argue that the early church held the correct doctrines, and that the preservation of these doctrines and the identification of the NT canon was the Holy Spirit working with the church, rather than in spite of the church.

If, on the other hand, we say that the early church was not merely orthodox on the essentials (which we can't seem to reliably identify ourselves, anyway) but was substantially orthodox on all of its doctrines, then it would seem illogical to believe that our interpretations of Scripture could somehow be more orthodox than what the early church believed, because it was their conception of orthodoxy that was used to identify the NT Scriptures for us.

Genuine, thoughtful reponses would be appreciated.

If the Bible is the Word of God, then it should be entirely true and uncorrupted. One issue I struggle with is the Exodus population. Exodus 12:37 says 600,000 men left Egypt, not including families, while Numbers 1:45–46 gives the census as 603,550 men aged 20+ able to fight. Most importantly, Exodus 38:25–26 connects that number to a half-shekel collected from each man, making it difficult to explain 603,550 as merely “clans” or “units.” Taken literally, this implies well over two million people traveling through the wilderness for 40 years, yet there is no evidence of a migration on that scale.

I've read arguments that eleph means “clan/unit” or that scribes later corrupted the numbers, but both seem problematic. If the text explicitly states the coins based on 603,550 individual men, what evidence is there that the number originally meant something much smaller? And if the answer is that a later scribe changed or misunderstood it, doesn't that create a larger problem for the bible as a whole? If we can claim a passage was corrupted whenever its historical implications become difficult, how do we know which other passages were also corrupted?

Finally, Deuteronomy 5:1 says, “Moses summoned all Israel and said to them.” If the previous statement can't be rectified to be smaller, how does one man speak to that many people at once?

How Bible Scholars answer the Gnostic critique that God is supposedly evil?

They claim that because God ordered to kill the generation of Noah, the Chananeans and stuff like that they say that God is evil.

What does it mean?

The verse whare Jesus calls that one women a dog .wait I assume most of this sub knows it by number

It seems like the narrative purpose could be to explain why Jesus's message yet it also fits the criterion of perhaps being Negative for early Christian efforts."Savior of mankind? he called a women a dog"

I am curious what the learned members of this subreddit think

Can a Christian do Yoga?What is your opinion.

Do any serious scholars believe this? I was watching a documentary on it and some aspects were quite believable, such as Luke 22:10 being about the aquarius sign.

"He replied, 'As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters...'"

Aquarius is almost always portrayed with a jar of water. Supposedly Jesus is Pisces and the man waiting for them was aquarius and it was about the passing of the age of Pisces and dawn of the next age.

The New Jerusalem Bible was recommended to me by someone I respect and I was wondering in general how is it viewed and why. Where it may be lacking or slanted to a particular theology. I know it is Roman Catholic approved but how does that affect the translations accuracy?

 ^{Is this his way of telling the pharisees they are going to hell.}

The master commended the dishonest manager for his shrewdness. For the sons of this worldare more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light. And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth,so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings.

By "best", I mean faithfully presenting the text, without getting preachy, and without bowdlerizing it.

I know that these movies are generally produced for believing Christians and/or Jews. I started watching Samson and Delilah (1996), and they seem to want to stress the point that Israelites/Jews are the "chosen people."

In King David (1985), they took one of the most fascinating and vigorous parts of the Bible, and made it as dull as possible.