Deborah_

If you look at almost any modern version of the Bible, the speakers (Lover, Beloved, Attendants) are indicated in paragraph headings. For example, the NET Bible: https://bible.org/netbible/

Actually I don't think this should be a problem, because when your body makes breast milk it makes its own sugar (lactose) in the correct amount for the baby... the sugar that you eat doesn't go into your milk. I worked out that baby is now 10 months old, is that right? So presumably he/she is also having solid food by now? How much breast milk is he/she actually having, are you just breast-feeding for comfort? Would it ease the pressure on you to cut down a bit? (I know people have different opinions on how long one should breastfeed for, but the length of time isn't set in stone. My daughter weaned herself off the breast at the age of nine months). Are you deprived of sleep because your baby isn't sleeping? If so, what's keeping the baby awake? One piece of good advice that I was given is not to do 'too much' at night, just the bare minimum. If baby needs a feed, just give the feed and put him/her straight back down to sleep again. If the nappy (diaper?) needs changing, just change it - no playing games or extra cuddles - and go back to bed. Don't feel guilty about not being Supermother - none of us are Supermother, and we all need rest. And you have two other children as well! It helps everyone to sleep if you can have a regular bedtime routine. This may take a while to set up, as each new child changes the family dynamics, but it's a target to work towards. I would also suggest that you keep the sweets somewhere where you can't easily access them during the night. Putting your blood sugar up won't help you get back to sleep. All these problems are very common, so I would be surprised if it's anything spiritual. But sleep deprivation and exhaustion can make us feel both mentally and spiritually low.

God spoke in the language that was being used at the time. But language is constantly evolving, and words often change their meaning over decades and centuries. And when you translate from Hebrew or Greek into another language, the vocabulary often doesn't have exact equivalents anyway. One thing I've learned over 45 years of Bible study is that you can't put words into a straitjacket and force them to mean what you think they ought to mean. You have to look at the author's original circumstances and intentions, and then at the immediate context. And that does entail learning some of the history and background.

A home care agency may not employ people who are trained to take blood (that would be the responsibility of a qualified nurse or phlebotomist). But surely there is an American equivalent of our district nursing service? When I was on chemotherapy, I had blood samples taken at home every 3 weeks by the nurse who came to clean my intravenous line. And during the lockdown, nursing staff from our local doctors surgery often came to take blood from our next-door neighbours.

But in the Bible itself we have this same "confusion". In the Old Testament, "Israel" is often used to describe both Israel and Judah. The kingdom of Judah was never just the tribe of Judah; it always included the tribe of Benjamin, a quarter of the tribe of Levi, and an unknown number of the other tribes who moved to Judah after the kingdom was divided (II Chronicles 11:16,17). After the exile (when there was no longer a kingdom), all surviving Israelites (no matter what their tribal origins were) became known as "Jews" (because the vast majority had been citizens of the kingdom of Judah, even if their ancestors had been from the northern tribes). So in the new Testament, "the Jews" includes people like Anna, who was from the tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36). It may irritate those of us who like strict logical definitions, but the fact is that ever since the Exile (500 years or so before Christ), the word "Jew" has been applied to all the descendants of Jacob.

In the original language of the New Testament (Greek), "Jewish" and "Jew" are the same word. Just that when it's a noun, we translate it as "Jew" and when it's an adjective we translate it as "Jewish". And it just so happens that it rarely crops up as an adjective.

He might know it now. We don't know, because He won't tell us even if He does. As He said to His disciples just before His ascension, "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by His own authority." (Acts 1:7)

I think there are too aspects to this question: 1) When Jesus was on earth, was He omniscient? 2) Why didn't He know this very important piece of information in particular? 1) God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. Jesus is God, so surely He should be all these things as well? But hang on a minute, when He became man He wasn't omnipresent - He could only be in one place at a time. We don't generally have a problem with that. And He probably wasn't omniscient while He was on earth either - because how could all the knowledge in the universe (let alone outside it) be stored in one human brain? What we do see is that He had access to the power and knowledge of the Father at all times. He was given the power to do miracles through the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38), and He was given knowledge through the Spirit in the same way, as and when He needed it. 2) And He didn't need to know when He would come back! Surely the point that He is making is that it is not for human beings to know the future in such detail - because such knowledge distorts our decision-making. If not even Jesus knew the date of His return, then it's not important for us to know either.

Yes, they evolved - and scientists can now pinpoint certain genetic "events" that underlie our physical and physiological differences. Now that fast global travel is with us and international and interracial marriage is getting more common, one would expect these differences to become less obvious (over many many generations).

Because it's become the standard English word for a group of Christians. In every church I've belonged to (which is quite a lot) the leaders have been careful to explain to people that the word "church" describes the people, not the building they meet in.

They've become a feature of modern life. There are about a dozen in my city. Basically, if you can't afford to buy food, you go to a food bank and they will give you enough for 3-4 days, free of charge. The food has been donated by businesses and individuals - all the supermarkets have a food drop point where shoppers can make donati0ns. The way they operate varies. Some require clients to get a voucher from their social worker or Citizens Advice or some other organisation to prove that they are destitute. Others ask no questions. Some provide fresh food, others only dried and tinned food. Some are open every day, others only one day a week. The biggest food bank network in the UK is the Trussell Trust: https://www.trusselltrust.org

My point is, it doesn't make any sense for "the woman" in Genesis 3:15 to be the Church. In the New Testament, the Church is sometimes referred to as "the Bride", but as far as I know never as "the woman". "A woman" is mentioned in Revelation 12, but since she gives birth to the Messiah, most people believe that she represents Israel. Certainly she can't be the Church! So who is "the woman" in Genesis 3:15? In context it is specifically talking about Eve (the mother of the whole human race). But she can represent womanhood in general (making this a prophecy that the Deliverer would be "born of a woman" - Galatians 4:4 - and a hint at the virgin birth) .

Most Christians believe that the "offspring" of the woman who crushes the snake's head is Jesus. So how can the woman be the Church?

What is "spiritual covering"????? Never come across the term before

The word in Greek is 'skandaliso', which is a difficult word to translate as there is no direct equivalent in English. It can mean "cause to trip" (literally or morally), "cause to fall away", "take offence at", or "give offence to" (hence the English word 'scandalise'). In this particular passage, it's in the passive mood, so these people are being led astray/ being offended/ being caused to backslide. So it's not a case of one translation being 'right' and the other 'wrong' - both are attempts to make the sentence make sense in English. This is a common issue in translating any language - there's often more than one possible way to do it.

In what way do any NDEs confirm reincarnation? I've never heard that suggestion before. My mother had several NDEs as a child, though without ever being near death. (It was the effect of the anaesthetic used by the dentist whenever she had teeth removed). She found them terrifying (probably because she wasn't dying and so couldn't explain the sensations in a satisfactory way). So personally, I believe they are "real" experiences but not necessarily true experiences of death.

It isn't true - there is absolutely no evidence that the name 'Jehovah' or 'Yahweh' was ever in the New Testament. It's a theory that they have invented to account for the fact that it isn't mentioned - which debunks their claim that only those who use the name of God are saved. (Most English Bibles have replaced the name 'Yahweh' with "the LORD" throughout the Old Testament. This is pure convention, following the Jewish tradition of not speaking God's name - it's in the Hebrew manuscripts. But it doesn't appear anywhere in the original Greek New Testament)

II Chronicles 32:31 may be an example of the kind of thing you're thinking about. Hezekiah was a good and godly king, "but when envoys were sent by the rulers of Babylon to ask him about the miraculous sign that had occurred in the land, God left him to test him and to know everything that was in his heart." (You can read the full story in Isaiah 39)

Some individuals may well believe this, but it's actually highly speculative. It's based on a particular interpretation of Revelation and shouldn't be put forward by churches as mainstream Christian thinking or as a basis for decision-making. This is a good example of what I would call "exaggerating the dangers of the vaccine". If covid RNA from a vaccine can be integrated into our genomes then so can 'wild' covid RNA. And actually our genomes contain the remains of many other viruses that have been integrated in generations past. Should we be worried by this? I don't think so. Why is there a reverse transcriptase enzyme in our cells anyway, if not to do this kind of thing? It's obviously a perfectly natural process, however alarming it may sound.

Mandatory vaccination hasn't been an issue for most people in the UK. And I believe it would be less of an issue elsewhere if people stopped exaggerating the dangers of the vaccine. If my church started talking about things such as chip-implants in vaccines I would leave immediately - I would no longer have respect for the leadership.

Having or not having a vaccine is not a moral issue. For most people it will be right, but for some (e.g. because of health conditions) it will be wrong. Therefore we have to make such decisions for ourselves, and a church shouldn't be dictating to its members. And we already have guidance in God's Word. "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities" (Romans 13:1) "Don't look to your own interests but to the interests of others." (Philippians 2:4) So we don't need special revelations from the Holy Spirit to follow government advice on health issues, or to take responsible steps to minimise the risks of transmitting an infection. And it's because I don't expect my family to be miraculously preserved from health hazards that I encourage them to take up all the vaccinations that are on offer.

This is a vision (one of a series of eight, in fact). So it's conveying truth, but in a symbolic way. (At the time, the Temple was in ruins, so the high priest couldn't enter God's presence in the Most Holy Place) Joshua was the high priest in Zechariah’s day. He was a man of great significance, the man who represented the whole nation of Israel before God, and in this vision Zechariah sees him standing in God’s presence in the heavenly court. There was only one occasion in the year when the high priest actually entered the presence of God, in the Most Holy Place behind the Temple curtain, and that was on the Day of Atonement. Before doing so, he had to bathe himself, dress in pure white linen, and offer sacrifices to atone for his sin. That was how he made himself fit to enter the presence of a holy God. But Zechariah sees that despite all these preparations, Joshua is still not worthy to stand in God’s presence. His robes, that had seemed so clean and white outside, are actually dirty and stained when seen in the bright light of God’s holiness. And just in case God hadn’t noticed, Satan pops up to draw attention to this fact! Like a prosecuting attorney, he accuses Joshua of sin and attempts to have him thrown out. There is, on the face of it, nothing that can be said in Joshua’s defence. His guilt is displayed for all to see. He is in no fit state to stand before a holy God, let alone serve as priest, and he risks being struck dead by God’s wrath. And yet Joshua is neither rejected nor condemned. Indeed, the Judge Himself comes to his defence! (Zechariah 3:2) He will not even listen to Satan’s accusations - not because there is any virtue in either the priest or the people he represents, but because God intends to show mercy to sinners. Joshua’s dirty clothes are removed and he is given fresh, clean ones - signifying not just the forgiveness of his sins but their complete removal, to be replaced by robes of righteousness. Now Joshua, in his office as high priest, stands for all of us. There is no way that we can, by our own efforts, make ourselves acceptable to God. In the words of Isaiah, “all our righteous acts are like filthy rags.” (Isaiah 64:6) So Joshua’s problem is our problem: how can we possibly be worthy of our God or do anything acceptable to Him? And Satan loves to keep reminding us of our utter unworthiness! We have no excuses; we are guilty as charged. But all is not lost: “If anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father - Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins.” (I John 2:1) Zechariah’s vision is prophetic; the Angel of the Lord promises a day when the Messiah will come to His people, deal with their sin once and for all (Zechariah 3:8,9), and be a truly perfect and spotless high priest (Hebrews 7:26,27). And for us, that day is already here! When we believe in Jesus, our sins are taken away and we are “dressed” in the righteousness of Christ! “I delight greatly in the LORD; my soul rejoices in my God. For He has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of his righteousness.” (Isaiah 61:10)

In the Biblical world there were no social security systems. Even in those places where a strong central government existed (such as Egypt), to receive charity from the state was unimaginable; everyone expected to pay their own way through life, even if it was with their own bodies (see Genesis 47:18-20). Anyone who became bankrupt was faced with two alternatives: slavery or starvation. Prisoners of war were also enslaved – the only alternative was to kill them. Slavery in ancient times was thus the solution to certain practical problems. It was not by any stretch of the imagination a ‘good’ solution, and was always seen as a terrible fate, to be avoided at all costs (e.g. II Kings 4:1; Nehemiah 5:5). But until better options were invented, it could not be abolished without causing even worse suffering. The Old Testament Law was given to a Bronze Age society, and naturally reflects the realities of the time. The fact that it lays down a number of regulations for the treatment of slaves does not necessarily mean that God approves of or endorses slavery! Like divorce – which God hates (Malachi 2:16)! – certain questionable practices were permitted “because your hearts were hard.” (Mark 10:5) https://deborahsbiblestudies.wordpress.com/indigestible-issues/slavery/slavery-in-the-bible/

It is translated direct from the Hebrew and Greek texts, just as English language Bibles are. And modern translators use the latest version of the Greek text (the same one used by the NIV / NET and other modern versions).

That wasn't Jephthah's understanding. "When a man makes a vow to the LORD or takes an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said" (Numbers 30:2) No exceptions!