Deborah_

I think it's because He didn't want to advertise Himself as a healer. The healings were part of the proclamation of the Kingdom. Contrast with the modern vogue for advertising "healing services". People go to them because they want to be healed, not to meet with God.

No, it's not true. It's incredibly difficult to alter someone's DNA - scientists have been researching it for years because of the potential for curing genetic disorders, but so far without success. A 'DNA' vaccine is made from a fragment of viral DNA - the point is, it's not the whole virus so it can't infect you. It just stimulates your immunity.

Assuming that it's shown to work, yes.

Having looked at the article, I think the author(s) are applying certain presuppositions. They compare the use of 'yom' in Genesis 1 with the use of 'yom' in Numbers - but Numbers is a self-declared historical account, and the whole issue over Genesis 1 is that it may be of a different genre altogether. And if you're writing poetry or using metaphorical language, you do have licence to use words differently - as they themselves admit. But they seem to have labelled the whole of the book of Genesis as "history", without admitting the possibility of any nuance. As for God 'not wanting to communicate an ancient creation', surely the opening words "in the beginning" do just that? Just as our concept of the size of the universe has (thanks to modern astronomy) expanded far beyond what Moses would have thought, so has our concept of the age of the universe. But God still created it in the beginning.

Odd that my Hebrew textbook doesn't mention this "rule". Where did you get it from? "Dying" is the translator's effort to repeat the word "die" in English while still making sense. Grammatically in Hebrew it's a type of infinitive, so the one thing it doesn't mean is "dying". There's no equivalent in English, so in modern versions, they usually translate it as something like "you will surely die."

Thus is a common Hebrew construction in which the verb is repeated in order to emphasise it. Although what you say about Adam and Eve is absolutely true, it's not in the grammar.

So are they "excuses" for unbelief, or "reasons" for disagreeing with a particular interpretation? The Bible states that God created the heavens and the earth. I believe that. It doesn't tell us exactly how He did it, or how long ago (we can't be certain that the genealogies in Genesis are complete), or how long it took (the six days of creation may be symbolic rather than literal), so there's room for differences of opinion there. The "world" in the New Testament often refers to the "world of humanity" (as in John 3:16) rather than to the planet Earth. So when Paul says that "death came into the world", he could well be referring just to human death. I believe that human death is the consequence of sin, and that it began with the first humans (Adam and Eve).

I've had similar conversations with JWs recently (i e before the lockdown) The ones that I have met have been quoting John 17:6, where Jesus says "I have revealed your name to those whom you gave me." Trying to persuade me that the name He revealed was the name Jehovah/Yahweh (even though the Jews had been aware of that name for centuries!). But in the last few weeks I've been studying John's Gospel and one thing has struck me very powerfully: the name that Jesus uses for God (almost exclusively) throughout John's Gospel is "the Father". The 'new' name for God that He revealed was 'the Father'! Which of course is why He taught us to pray, "Our Father.." God wants us to call Him "Father". Think about it... anyone can call you by your name, but only your children can call you 'Father' (or 'Mother', in our case). So using the name 'Father' implies a more personal relationship, not a lesser one!

Unbelief in what, exactly?

Exactly - animal death has nothing to do with human sin.

Evolution need not deny that human death came by sin. Once God imprinted His image on us, we were not meant to die - and would not have died, apart from the Fall, because we could eat from the tree of life. Consider also these factors: 1) If animals did not die prior to man's sin, why did God give them the power to reproduce? The world would rapidly have become overpopulated with mice/beetles/ fish etc 2) If Adam had not witnessed animal death, how could he possibly have understood God's warning - that he himself would die if he ate the forbidden fruit?

Hi Sophie, I also believe that God created the process of evolution and then directed it in order to make us. And many other Christians do (but few will say so on forums like this one). It's too simple to say "I believe the Bible is literally true" because we nearly all agree that some parts of it aren't "literally true" (the lover in the Song of Songs isn't literally made of gold, ivory and marble, and Jesus isn't a literal vine or light!). Some parts are historical record, other parts are poetry, and metaphors crop up all over the place. Some Christians take Revelation literally, others don't. The same applies to the first few chapters of Genesis - I believe that they are powerful stories that tell us the truth about the beginnings of the human race, but not all the details may be "literal". Can you "believe in" both science and God? That's actually a poor way of phrasing the question, because when we say we "believe in God", we don't just mean that we think He's there and is true, but we trust ourselves to Him. And trusting in God precludes trusting in anything else (because of the first commandment). But I think it's perfectly possible to believe in God and also accept the findings of science; after all, the scientific method has proved itself highly effective in discovering how our world works. And science doesn't contradict God's word - it only contradicts a certain interpretation of God's word. https://biologos.org https://deborahsbiblestudies.wordpress.com/2019/03/20/in-the-beginning/

In my version it states "many" wives. That's not the same as "any number more than one".

There is no law against polygamy. I can't give you a verse for what doesn't exist. But clearly polygamy is permitted in Deuteronomy 21:15-17. The king was forbidden to take many wives (Deuteronomy 17:17) - but that didn't mean he was restricted to just one. David married six women before he even became king (II Samuel 3:2-5) - and God permitted it (II Samuel 12:8)!

The Law of Moses (Exodus - Deuteronomy)

Under the Law, Israelites could have more than one wife. Solomon wasn't breaking the Law in that way. The problem was that most of his wives were pagan - which was against the Law!

I know - I was comparing coronavirus now with the Black Death in the 14th century.

Several reasons, I think: 1) The crowds were all outdoors (much lower risk of transmission) 2) on the days when the beaches were crowded the UV light level was very high. 3) There's much less virus circulating after two months of pretty strict lockdown. In my area there have only been 8 known cases in the last week, and only 2 the week before that. So we did have a 'spike' last week, but it was so tiny that it was hardly noticeable! There's another theory going round: that a high proportion of a population are naturally immune because of exposure to other coronaviruses, so after the first wave passes through you get far fewer cases. My own feeling is that we should all be taking sensible precautions i.e. social distancing & wearing masks (because there's a lot we still don't know about the virus), but there's no reason at the moment to be particularly worried. It's not the Black Death.

This has never been the case. Completely different thing. The bodies dissected in medical schools came from people who donated their bodies to scientific research, not people who gave permission to donate their organs. And once the heart, lungs, liver etc had been taken out, a body wouldn't be much use for dissecting by medical students, would it? In the UK, very few if any medical schools use real bodies now anyway. Students learn their anatomy by "virtual" dissection using computers.

People vary enormously in their anxiety levels and their willingness to live with risk. So I'm sure that there are some for whom wearing a mask gives them a sense of security - even though the mask is to protect other people, not themselves! Personally I put a mask on if I go into a shop (and it I went on public transport it would be compulsory) - but I see no point in wearing one outdoors.

Depends where you live. In Wales there's been an opt-out system for several years already. I'm disqualified from being an organ donor on medical grounds anyway. I don't think there's a specific Christian point of view; everyone must decide for themselves.

Epilepsy is a symptom with many many causes: brain tumours, chemical imbalances, injuries to the brain, infections, blood vessel malformations... In some cases there is no obvious explanation. There is one case in the Bible - just one! - of epilepsy caused by a demon. So it's evidently not impossible that epilepsy could be of demonic origin - but statistically it's extremely unlikely.

I wasn't aware that they had any problems with Bible translation. Can you explain? The Book of Mormon isn't a translation of the bible - it's a completely different book! The LDS consider it as an addition to the Bible, rather than as a replacement.

At least it was outdoors - and with the hot weather and sunshine, the risk of passing on the infection will not be anywhere near as great as it was a couple of months ago. I'm classified as "moderately vulnerable", but I wouldn't say that I'm afraid. I can't wait to get out more (within reason)! As a doctor myself, I take strong objection to the suggestion that doctors are falsifying death certificates on a mass level. We are encouraged to put Covid-19 on the certificate if we have good reason to believe it was the cause of death, even without a positive test result (because some patients are not tested, and some of the results are false negative) - otherwise the number of deaths could easily be under-estimated. But that's no different to normal practice. It's certainly not as bad as some people are making out. The vast majority of people who catch it have no symptoms at all. But that doesn't alter the fact that for a small proportion of us it's deadly. And just 1% of 60 million people is 600,000 people. So the politicians are right to be cautious. But now that the Government is trying to get people back to work and children back into school, it's the unions and the public who are dragging their feet!

That's what a lot of us are also wondering. Absolutely. That's the worst thing in the whole story (but didn't come out at the beginning). In trying to dig himself out of a hole, he's only succeeded in digging himself in deeper. And 30 miles is a very long "test drive". You'd think round the block would be sufficient (even if it was safe, which it wasn't).