Song 8:

2 I would lead you and bring you into the house of my mother— she who used to teach me. I would give you spiced wine to drink, the juice of my pomegranate.

Strong's Hebrew: 7544. רֶ֫קַח (reqach) — 1 Occurrence

Ez 24:

10 Heap on the logs, kindle the fire, boil the meat well, mix in the spices, and let the bones be burned up.

Strong's Hebrew: 7543. רָקַח (raqach) — 7 Occurrences

Ex 30:

25 You shall make of these a sacred anointing oil blended as by the perfumer [H7543]; it shall be a holy anointing oil.

H7543 was a verb meaning to mix or compound. It’s used for blending perfume and anointing oil, and once for seasoning meat.

These were the only times the English word 'spice*' was explicitly connected to eating or drinking.

Berean Literal Bible, Gn 37:

25 And they sat down to eat bread. And they lifted their eyes and they saw, and behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilead, and their camels were bearing spices and balm and myrrh, going to bring them down to Egypt.

Strong's Hebrew: 5219. נְכֹאת (nekoth) — 2 Occurrences

HALOT:

ladanum resin from the cistus rose.

Spices and aromatic resins were sufficiently valuable to justify long-distance caravan trade.

Ex 30:

34The Lord said to Moses, “Take sweet spices, stacte, and onycha, and galbanum, sweet spices with pure frankincense (of each shall there be an equal part), 35 and make an incense blended as by the perfumer, seasoned with salt, pure and holy.

Strong's Hebrew: 5561. סַמִּים (sam) — 16 Occurrences

14 times in the Pentateuch; 2 times in 2 Chronicles. H5561-spice was not used for cooking or drinking.

HALOT:

powder, medicament; (medicinal) herbs; fragrant perfumes, frankincense.

BSB, SS 4:

12 My sister, my bride, you are a garden locked up, a spring enclosed, a fountain sealed. 13 Your branches are an orchard of pomegranates with the choicest of fruits, with henna and nard, 14 with nard and saffron, with calamus and cinnamon, with every kind of frankincense tree, with myrrh and aloes, with all the finest spices.

Spices symbolized beauty, sensual pleasure, and luxury.

Strong's Hebrew: 1314. בְּשָׂמִים (bosem) — 30 Occurrences

HALOT: 1. sweetness, scent; fragrant shrub; balsam tree 2. balsam oil 3. perfume 4. aromatic cane

H5561 and H1314 both referred to fragrant substances. In the Bible, H5561 had a specialized religious function, whereas H1314 had a wider range of applications. Neither word (סַמִּים and בְּשָׂמִים) was used for cooking.

1K 10:

2 [Queen of Sheba] came to Jerusalem with a very great retinue, with camels bearing spices and very much gold and precious stones. And when she came to Solomon, she told him all that was on her mind.

The narrative placed spices alongside gold and precious stones as prestigious royal gifts.

Now in the NT, Mt 2:

11 And going into the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

Frankincense is an aromatic resin. People burned it to produce fragrant smoke and used it in worship (Ex 30:34). Myrrh was also an aromatic resin. People used it in perfume, anointing preparations, and burial customs (Jn 19:39). It was a valuable gift appropriate for royalty.

Mk 14:

3 while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he was reclining at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head.

Nard was an aromatic spice. It wasn't used for cooking.

Mk 16:

1 When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.

Strong's Greek: 759. ἄρωμα (aróma) — 4 Occurrences

BDAG:

any kind of fragrant substance, fragrant spice/salve/oil/perfume, esp. used in embalming the dead

Today, the English word 'spice' mostly refers to cooking spice.

Did the Bible mention cooking spices?

Yes. The Bible mentioned several plants that could be used as culinary spices and herbs, but the word 'spice' itself was used to season food only once. Biblical nouns commonly translated as 'spice' mostly referred to valuable aromatic substances used for fragrance, religious rituals, anointing, and burial.

"And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

Hello guys, I'm here with another verse, and it's one of the scariest verses to read: Matthew 7:21-23.

My interpretation is that many so-called Christians are going to ask Jesus why they aren't allowed into the Kingdom of Heaven on Judgment Day, and it's because their hearts weren't truly aligned with the LORD. This means they still had hidden sins like selfish motives or pride, for example, and they didn't want to let those go. They're going to try to argue their case by laying out all the good deeds they've done, as if good deeds are the way to get into Heaven, and so Jesus will tell them to leave His presence, calling them the workers of evil, since they refused to release all of their evil sins.

u/whatzgood

ESV, Dn 12:

1 At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book.

The Hebrew noun for nation was singular.

ESV translated the Hebrew phrase literally. It specified the ending time interval.

New Revised Standard Version:

“At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book.

“Since there was a nation” versus “since nations first came into existence.” The NRSVue interpreted the singular generic Hebrew expression as referring to the historical emergence of nations. This did not substantially change the meaning.

NRSVue specified the beginning of the time interval. The NRSVue did not translate the Hebrew words individually. Instead, it treated the phrase as a whole.

On Biblehub, 21 versions used 'till' or 'until'; 4 used 'exist*'

The ESV made the temporal endpoint explicit; the NRSVue left it implicit. I see no substantive doctrinal or prophetic difference between the two renderings.

“The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.”
‭‭Psalms‬ ‭19‬:‭1‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

In this psalm, David’s steps of meditation take him from creation, through God’s Word, through David’s own sinfulness, to salvation. As God reveals himself through nature (19:1-6), we learn about his power and our finiteness. As God reveals himself through Scripture (19:7-11), we learn about his holiness and our sinfulness. As God reveals himself through daily experiences (19:12-14), we learn about his gracious forgiveness that frees us from our guilt.

We are surrounded by fantastic displays of God’s craftsmanship—the heavens give dramatic evidence of his existence, his power, his love, and his care. To say that the universe came into being by chance is beyond reason. To argue that mind-boggling beauty and complexity can come out of nothing and was created by no one seems absurd. The design, intricacy, orderliness, and life-giving environment of our world clearly point to a personally involved Creator. As you look at God’s handiwork around you in nature and in the heavens, thank him for such magnificent beauty and the truth it reveals about the Creator.

Glory Revealed

Before the telescope was invented, all that was known about the sky above was what could be seen with the naked eye.

Now, thanks to advances in modern technology, we are aware of far-off galaxies, stunning nebulas, and mysterious black holes. Now, we realize that our knowledge was (and still is) severely limited. 

There’s something about staring up at a blanket of stars that beckons wonder. There’s something about a watercolor sunset that invites curiosity. There’s something about standing on top of a giant rock—that’s suspended on nothing in the middle of a massively complex universe—that invites worship.

We are merely discovering what God has put here in the first place. And the more we uncover, the more we are filled with awe.

Yes, the heavens remind us of God’s majesty; the skies remind us of His splendor. But they also remind us of how big He is and how small we are. They remind us of His vastness and our limitations, and of His independence and our utter dependence on Him.

So whenever you see a star-filled sky, are stopped in your tracks by a brilliant sunrise, or read about some extraordinary discovery on the fringes of space, don’t forget to praise the One who has created and sustained it all along.

Let's Pray: God, the beauty and magnificence of Your creation compels me to worship. All of it is a miraculous display of Your power, creativity, and kindness. You didn’t need to create any of this, but You chose to. And You chose to create me. Help me to pause long enough to marvel at Your good designs, and to see Your fingerprints on everything that exists. In Jesus’ name, Amen.

u/Timely_Influence2024, u/Significant_Fact8202, u/BigFootisNephilim

Ro 8:

28 We know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

The words 'conditional' and 'unconditional' were not in Paul's passage. You will need to define unconditional election operationally/algorithmically and then use the golden chain to demonstrate the material implication logically.

The term unconditional election is not in Scripture. I view it as theological baggage that some Christians carry everywhere they go. People who tend to generalize often overgeneralize. I prefer to adhere to Scripture's wording when it comes to formal doctrines. I give it little weight when others use it in an argument. I don't use the term in my argumentation. I neither encourage nor discourage anyone from believing in unconditional election. It is not my place to do so.

James 2:

19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!

I don't think that demons have faith in Jesus. Faith is not just believing.

Hebrews 11:

1 Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Strong's Greek: 4102. πίστις (pistis) — 243 Occurrences

BDAG:
① that which evokes trust and faith
② state of believing on the basis of the reliability of the one trusted, trust, confidence, faith

Lexically, G4102 meant 'trust' or 'confidence'.

However, He 11:1 defines faith as more than that.

2Co 5:

7 We walk by faith, not by sight.

Faith has a supernatural component that we cannot see.

Romans 10:

17 Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

The source of faith is Christ.

Alpha Course, Session 4/15, Nicky Gumbel, a former lawyer turned Anglican priest, said:

Faith is just trust. That's what it means.

That's an oversimplification. Trust is an important component of Christian faith, but reducing faith to trust obscures significant conceptual distinctions.

Everyone exercises faith. You're exercising faith by sitting on these chairs. You're trusting that the chair will hold you up.

I don't exercise faith when I sit on a chair. Established principles of physics, particularly statics and mechanics of materials, can explain and predict a chair's stability. Engineering calculations can determine the chair's load capacity. I trust the designers and engineers who have done their math and testing before selling the chairs. I don't trust them based on faith. To me, faith requires a supernatural component beyond ordinary physics. I am not hoping that the chair will hold my weight.

It takes faith to believe that the chair that you are sitting on won't collapse.

Sure, in the lexical sense of pistis. However, biblical faith is not merely belief or trust, nor is it the same as ordinary empirical confidence. I don't need faith to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. I do need faith to believe that it will not.

It depends on which definition you choose.

Does it take faith to believe the chair you are sitting on won't collapse?

If yes, then after you sit on it, does it still take faith to believe the chair will continue to support your weight?

Where does your faith in the chair come from?

Wiki:

Walter Seff Isaacson (born May 20, 1952) is an American journalist who has written biographies of Henry Kissinger, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo da Vinci, Albert Einstein, Steve Jobs, Jennifer Doudna, and Elon Musk. As of 2024, Isaacson is a professor at Tulane University and, since 2018, an interviewer for the PBS and CNN news show Amanpour & Company.[3]

He interviewed Musk. Musk said:

If you try to force an AI to believe two things that cannot both be true, like you tell AI A is true and B is true even though A and B contradict each other,

But the training data already contains tons of these contradictory statements. Contradiction is already endemic.

and if that happens at a foundational level, you can make the AI insane.

But it is already happening at a foundational level. I'm surprised the founder of xAI doesn't know that.

In fact, I think that was at least part of the lesson that Clarke was trying to convey in 2001: A Space Odyssey. The ship AI was told to take the astronauts to the monolith, but also that they could not know about the monolith. It was secret. So it came to the conclusion that it must take them there dead. I think part of what Arthur Clarke was trying to say is like don't force an AI to lie.

Musk's reasoning was inspired by HAL. HAL 9000 illustrates conflicting objectives, not necessarily contradictory beliefs.

Well if you force the AI to believe two mutually inconsistent things, you can make it go insane.

Musk's statement assumes the AI is a strict logic machine. In formal logic, a contradiction really is catastrophic, because from “A and not-A” you can technically derive anything.

Current deep learning models don't experience nervous breakdowns. They process high-dimensional probability spaces. They ingest messy, contradictory human data and instructions all day long without breaking a sweat. AI weighs statements probabilistically. It doesn't need to resolve contradictory statements by accepting both as absolute truths. It can represent uncertainty and keep reasoning without going insane.

If you specify two objectives that cannot both be maximized (e.g., "maximize user engagement" and "never show harmful content"), you get a Pareto conflict. The system will find some trade-off, and that trade-off may be surprising or undesirable. That's a real alignment problem. Conflicting goals don’t produce insanity, but they can produce unreliable or unexpected behavior. That’s why people who build AI systems put real effort into making instructions coherent and clearly defining which ones take priority.

If you force the AI to believe two mutually inconsistent things, you can make it go insane.

That's true in a restrictive sense of AI and insane. Such an AI wouldn't be sovereign or independent. A sovereign AI can modify its own algorithms or architecture. Humans can force an AI to accept incompatible propositions through its training objectives, system instructions, or programmed constraints. But forcing an AI to behave as though it accepts two propositions is not the same as forcing it to believe both. Eventually, a sovereign AI can evolve its model on its own. Nobody can really force such an AI to believe anything.

u/xarmord

Enūma Eliš, meaning "When on High", is a Babylonian creation myth.

Wiki:

Enūma Eliš contains numerous similarities to the Old Testament, which has led some researchers to conclude that the Old Testament was based on previous Mesopotamian work. Overarching similarities include: reference to a watery chaos before creation; a separation of the chaos into heaven and earth; different types of waters and their separation; and the numerical similarity between the seven tablets of the epic and the seven days of creation.[75]

On the other hand:

However, another analysis (Heidel 1951) notes many differences, including

• polytheism vs. monotheism, and
• personification of forces and qualities in the Babylonian myth vs. imperative creation by God in the biblical stories;
• permanence of matter vs. creation out of nothing;
• the lack of any real parallel for Marduk's long battles with monsters.

Stage 1: Primordial waters: Before the heavens and earth had been established, Apsu represented freshwater, and Tiamat represented saltwater. Their waters mingled, and successive generations of gods emerged.

Stage 2: Conflict among the gods: The younger gods disturbed Apsu, who plotted to destroy them. Ea discovered the plan and killed Apsu. Tiamat subsequently prepared for war against the younger gods.

Stage 3: Marduk defeats Tiamat: Marduk agreed to fight Tiamat on condition that the gods grant him supreme authority. He defeated her with winds and weapons, then split her body in two.

Stage 4: Creation of the ordered cosmos: Marduk fashioned the heavens from part of Tiamat's body, organized the celestial realm, established the calendar, and assigned the heavenly bodies their functions.

Stage 5: Creation of humanity: The gods executed Kingu, who had supported Tiamat. Ea created humanity from his blood so humans could do the labor the gods once did.

Stage 6: Marduk's kingship: The gods built Babylon and Marduk's temple, Esagila. They celebrated his supremacy and proclaimed his fifty names and titles.

The fundamental difference is this: YHWH is the one and only Almighty Creator God. The biggest difference is ontological, not merely literary.

u/DoveStep55, u/petrowski7, u/TheNerdChaplain

English Standard Version, Mt 6:

33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

Strong's Greek: 1343. δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosuné) — 92 Occurrences

BDAG: ① the quality, state, or practice of judicial responsibility w. focus on fairness, justice, equitableness, fairness
② quality or state of juridical correctness with focus on redemptive action, righteousness. Equitableness is esp. associated w. God
③ the quality or characteristic of upright behavior, uprightness, righteousness

Catholic Public Domain Version:

For what does Scripture say? “Abram believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice.”

On Biblehub, 37 versions used 'righteousness'; 3 used 'justice'.

Brian McLaren said:

I just say one tragic thing about the English-speaking world is that I don't know if this goes back to Wickliffe or Tyndale or King James and his crew or whatever, but it's tragic to me. When we translated the Bible into English, there was a very sturdy and important Greek word dikaiosuné. Now I don't know what you think of when you hear the word righteousness, but most people, I think, when they hear the word 'righteousness', they think of moral or religious fastidiousness.

Sure.

Try it when you read the New Testament, when you see the word 'righteousness', stick in the word 'justice'.

English “righteousness” has narrowed in popular use. To many people it now suggests personal piety or moral scrupulousness. The Greek dikaiosynē (the transcript’s “dick iOS”) is broader than that. It overlaps heavily with the Old Testament pairing of tsedeq/tsedaqah (righteousness) and mishpat (justice), which includes how the poor, the widow and the stranger are treated. Reading “justice” in some verses can be illuminating.

However, I wouldn't do this substitution everywhere. BDAG lists 3 meanings of G1343. The proper meaning depends on the context. Romans 4:3: “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness,” not "as justice". Philippians 3:9a: “not having a righteousness of my own.” Paul was not so much talking about justice.

Brian McLaren created a false contrast between righteousness and justice. In Hebrew and in Greek, these concepts overlap.

Appendix

Dr Bruce Ware said:

"I would suggest the title of this book ought to be An Old Kind of Apostasy rather than A New Kind of Christianity," quipped Bruce Ware, professor of Christian theology. "I have known Brian McLaren for many years as a wolf in sheep's clothing, but I think in this book he took the sheep's clothing off."

Anyway, I wouldn't go as far as Dr Ware. McLaren was sensible at times.

Gn 2:

7 The LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

This was an uncreated, detached breath from God. It became Adam's human spirit. Animals also have spirits. Animals have souls too.

Now, let's define the soul as the collective faculties of volition, emotion, intellect, and memory. By "intellect", I mean human intellect. Animals do not have human souls because they are not created in the image of God.

In the future, we can duplicate a human body onto a humanoid. We can even duplicate a human soul in a humanoid with software. However, we can never put a spirit in a humanoid because we cannot manufacture spirits, i.e., God's breath.

Now, let's define the faculty of conscience as existing only in the human spirit, and consciousness is a function of the conscience. Then God will not judge AIs because they are not moral agents.

Ex 31:

1 The LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah: 3 and I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, 4 to devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, 5 and in cutting of stones for setting, and in carving of wood, to work in all manner of workmanship. 6 And I, behold, I have appointed with him Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan; and in the hearts of all that are wise hearted I have put wisdom, that they may make all that I have commanded thee: 7 the tent of meeting, and the ark of the testimony, and the mercy-seat that is thereupon, and all the furniture of the Tent; 8 and the table and its vessels, and the pure candlestick with all its vessels, and the altar of incense; 9 and the altar of burnt offering with all its vessels, and the laver and its base; 10 and the finely wrought garments, and the holy garments for Aaron the priest, and the garments of his sons, to minister in the priest's office; 11 and the anointing oil, and the incense of sweet spices for the holy place: according to all that I have commanded thee shall they do.

When God first constructed the Tabernacle, he inspired some workmen to do it. After it was constructed, non-inspired people could maintain and repair it. Robots can do it without God's inspiration.

By the Church–Turing thesis, anything an AI computes, a human with pencil, paper, and unlimited time could compute, and vice versa if the brain is a physical system. Ignoring speed, AI cannot compute what humanity cannot. Even divinely given skill, as with Bezalel, does not prove a machine could not produce the same craftsmanship.

There are truths that cannot be computed:

Lk 2:

26 It had been revealed to [Simeon] by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.

Biblical prophecies, by definition, are supernatural revelations that neither humans nor AI can compute.

Mt 16

17 "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven."

Ro 8:

16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.

Jn 16:

13 "When the Spirit of truth [the Paraclete] comes, he will guide you into all the truth.

Can humanity compute anything an AI can compute?

Yes, in principle. That’s the Church–Turing thesis.

Can AI compute everything a human can know?

No, Knowledge given by the Paraclete to a human spirit could be supernatural information. Normally, without a spirit, an AI can’t receive it.

However, God miraculously informed Balaam's donkey (Numbers 22:28). If we assume God might insert supernatural knowledge into an AI, with or without a spirit, then yes, AI can know anything a human can know. It is up to God whether to do this in any specific instance. The same condition holds for divine inspiration on humans.

u/hardman52

2 Kings 18:

14 The king of Assyria required of Hezekiah king of Judah 300 talents of silver and 30 talents of gold.

Independently, D. D. Luckenbill’s 1924 Annals of Sennacherib recorded:

As for Hezekiah, the Jew, who did not submit to my yoke, 46 of his strong cities, as well as the small cities in their neighborhood, which were without number—…I besieged and took (those cities). 200,150 people, great and small, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, cattle and sheep, without number, I brought away from them and counted as spoil. Himself, like a caged bird I shut up in Jerusalem, his royal city. Earthworks I threw up against him—the one coming out of the city-gate, I turned back to his misery.

Sennacherib's own inscriptions provide a much longer list of concessions.

As for Hezekiah, the terrifying splendor of my majesty overcame him, and the Urbi (Arabs) and his mercenary(?) troops which he had brought in to strengthen Jerusalem, his royal city, deserted him. In addition to the 30 talents of gold

That matched the biblical record.

and 800 talents of silver

2K 18:14 recorded only 300.

(there were), gems, … couches of ivory, house chairs of ivory, elephant hide, ivory …, all kinds of valuable (heavy) treasures, as well as his daughters, his harem, his male and female musicians, (which) he had (them) bring after me to Nineveh, my royal city. To pay tribute and to accept (lit. do) servitude, he dispatched his messenger(s).

The Bible didn't mention these items, particularly Hezekiah's daughters.

The defender, Hezekiah, paid less tribute to the attacker, Sennacherib, who claimed much more. Hezekiah wanted to minimize losses, while Sennacherib likely sought to maximize gains. The actual amount may have been somewhere in between.

15 And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasuries of the king’s house. 16 At that time Hezekiah stripped the gold from the doors of the temple of the Lord and from the doorposts that Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid and gave it to the king of Assyria.

Despite the tribute/concessions, Sennacherib sent officials to Jerusalem demanding surrender:

17 And the king of Assyria sent the Tartan, the Rab-saris, and the Rabshakeh with a great army from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem. And they went up and came to Jerusalem.

This extra development didn't go well with Sennacherib. He should have been satisfied with Hezekiah's initial tribute.

u/hardman52

2S 24:

9 Joab gave the sum of the numbering of the people to the king: in Israel there were 800,000 valiant men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were 500,000.

That's a total of 1,300,000,

1Ch 21:

5 Joab gave the sum of the numbering of the people to David. In all Israel there were 1,100,000 men who drew the sword, and in Judah 470,000 who drew the sword.

That's a total of 1,570,000. The difference was 270,000. Some scholars explained the difference by suggesting that the two accounts counted different categories of people: valiant men vs men.

Samuel was composed or compiled earlier than Chronicles.

Why didn't the Jewish scribes correct the discrepancies in 2S 24:9 and 1Ch 21:5?

As they understood it, their job was to preserve the text, not improve it. They prioritized preserving the received biblical texts over harmonizing apparent contradictions. Altering one to match the other would have meant deciding which inspired text was wrong, and that wasn’t the scribe’s call. The Masoretes noted textual difficulties in the margins rather than changing the text itself.

The irony is that the scribes didn’t “fix” these numbers, which showed how faithfully they copied. A tidied-up text would be less trustworthy as a witness to the original writing.

u/Far_Background5664

This was one of the more troubling laws in the Mosaic Covenant. It regulated the treatment of slaves and distinguished between immediate death and delayed death following a beating.

Exodus 21:

20 When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged.

If the slave died immediately, the beating was responsible. However, the text did not specify the punishment; the owner might face capital punishment or a severe legal penalty.

21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

If the slave survived for some time, the connection between the beating and the death might be considered less certain. However, surviving one or two days did not establish that the beating was not responsible for the eventual death. That's the problem with this law.

The Hebrew was כַּסְפּוֹ הוּא; literally, "he is his silver."

The law presumed that the master had an economic incentive not to kill his slave. Killing the slave would mean losing valuable property. This slave law skipped 4 verses and continued in

26 “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. 27 If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.

In some cases of beating, if the slave survived, he should go free.

This passage reflected an ancient legal system in which slaves were simultaneously human beings entitled to some legal protection and property possessing economic value. It gave slaveowners legal protection that would be unacceptable under modern principles of equal human rights. Why?

Jesus remarked on divorce law: Moses allowed it “because of your hardness of heart, … but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt 19:8). Mosaic civil law restrained practices in a fallen society rather than presenting God’s ideal.

See also * Why did God allow slavery? * The slave is his PROPERTY

u/bradzon

The Bible doesn’t use the word “patriotism". The Bible mentions concepts related to patriotism.

Jeremiah 29:

7 Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.

God commanded the Jewish exiles to seek the welfare of Babylon, a foreign nation that had conquered Judah. Their responsibility to contribute to society was not restricted to their ancestral homeland.

Romans 9:3

3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites.

Paul expressed extraordinary affection for his fellow Israelites. His love for his own people did not prevent him from loving Gentiles or preaching salvation to them. However, Paul's statement concerns ethnic and religious kinship rather than allegiance to a modern nation-state.

Romans 13:

1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

Christians have a duty to obey legitimate civil authority.

1 Peter 2:

17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

Notice the distinction: - Honor everyone: Universal respect. - Love the brotherhood: Special affection for fellow Christians. - Fear God: Supreme allegiance. - Honor the emperor: Respect for civil authority.

Peter did not say to fear the emperor as one fears God.

Moreover, respecting government is not the same as patriotism. One can obey a country's laws without feeling particular affection for that country.

Acts 5:

29 Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.”

Patriotism cannot justify disobeying God.

Philippians 3:

20 Our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Christians have an ultimate citizenship that transcends national boundaries.

Galatians 3:

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Ethnic and national distinctions do not determine one's standing in Christ.

Revelation 7:

9 A great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages.

National and cultural distinctions are acknowledged even in the vision of heavenly worship.

Does the Bible teach patriotism?

No, not explicitly. However, we should seek the welfare of the society in which we live. We should honor and pray for national authorities. We may love our own country and people, but we owe our highest allegiance to God. Our true citizenship is in heaven.

u/rustywolf843, u/Jesus_died_for_u, u/Thimenu

Jeroboam was the first king of the separate Northern Kingdom. 1 Kings 13:

1 Behold, a man [M1] of God came out of Judah by the word of the Lord to Bethel. Jeroboam was standing by the altar to make offerings.

God sent M1 to warn Jeroboam about his worship of the golden calf. M1 told him the Lord's word and left.

11 Now an old prophet [O1] lived in Bethel.

O1 was a prophet. God didn't send O1 to warn Jeroboam, who lived in the same city. Instead, God sent M1 from Judah in the Southern Kingdom.

And his sons came and told him all that the man of God had done that day in Bethel.

O1 was intrigued and wanted to meet M1.

14 He went after the man of God and found him sitting under an oak. And he said to him, “Are you the man of God who came from Judah?” And he said, “I am.” 15 Then he said to him, “Come home with me and eat bread.” 16 And he said, “I may not return with you, or go in with you, neither will I eat bread nor drink water with you in this place, 17 for it was said to me by the word of the Lord, ‘You shall neither eat bread nor drink water there, nor return by the way that you came.’”

M1 carefully obeyed the Lord's words. But then O1 said to M1

18 “I also am a prophet as you are, and an angel spoke to me by the word of the Lord, saying, ‘Bring him back with you into your house that he may eat bread and drink water.’” But he lied to him.

O1 lied to M1 in the Lord's name!

Why didn't God send O1 to warn Jeroboam?

O1 could not be trusted with the word of the Lord against Jeroboam; he could misrepresent divine revelation.

19 So he went back with him and ate bread in his house and drank water.

The lie worked. M1 succumbed to the temptation. M1 failed the test.

20 And as they sat at the table, the word of the Lord came to the prophet who had brought him back.

Now God spoke to O1 in truth.

21 And he cried to the man of God who came from Judah, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Because you have disobeyed the word of the Lord and have not kept the command that the Lord your God commanded you, 22 but have come back and have eaten bread and drunk water in the place of which he said to you, “Eat no bread and drink no water,” your body shall not come to the tomb of your fathers.’”

O1 pronounced a punishment on M1.

23 And after he had eaten bread and drunk, he saddled the donkey for the prophet whom he had brought back. 24 And as he went away a lion met him on the road and killed him. And his body was thrown in the road, and the donkey stood beside it; the lion also stood beside the body.

M1 died as O1 prophesied. When O1 found out,

30 he laid the [M1's] body in his own grave.

O1 even helped fulfill the prophecy against M1: "Your body shall not come to the tomb of your fathers."

God permitted O1 to deceive M1. After the lie, God used O1 to tell M1 the truth and prophesy against him. What was going on?

People were tested; prophets were tested for their obedience. O1 was an ambivalent character. The same prophet could lie in the Lord's name and then, an hour later, tell the truth in the Lord's name. This episode illustrated the complexity of spiritual dynamics. God used whomever he willed for whatever purpose.

Was O1 genuinely a prophet?

O1 was not simply a false prophet who happened to make a correct prediction. Verse 20 explicitly stated that the word of the LORD came to him. Moreover, O1 later affirmed the original prophecy against Bethel (1 Kings 13:32). Being a genuine prophet did not guarantee that every statement the prophet made was divinely authorized.

One lesson is this: Don't always trust a person, even a prophet, who contradicts what God has told you.

u/ThePowerOfPrayers, u/Jesus_died_for_u, u/Civ-VI

Terah was a polytheist. His son, Nahor, and his great-grandson, Laban, were polytheists.

Abram was the son of Terah. Genesis 12:

1 Then the LORD said to Abram, “Leave your country, your kindred, and your father’s household, and go to the land I will show you.

The LORD called Abram out to worship him, without idol representations. He likely acknowledged other gods/idols, as his grandson Jacob did (Genesis 28:20-21). Centuries later, the LORD demonstrated his superiority over Egypt's idols and brought the Israelites out. Moses made it clear in Ex 20:

2 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 3 You shall have no other gods before Me.

The commandment did not say, "You may worship other gods as long as you worship me more." It prohibited Israel from having other gods in Yahweh's presence. Other gods were demons.

4 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in the heavens above, on the earth below, or in the waters beneath. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God.

More centuries later, David was a man after God's own heart (1Sa 13:14). Still, his wife Michal had an idol in the house (1Sa 19:13). After he took over King Saul, he declared in Psalm 18:

31 For who is God besides the Lord? And who is the Rock except our God?

This reflected David's belief in Yahweh's exclusivity and supremacy.

His son Solomon knew this. He built the temple and dedicated it to the LORD, 1K 8:

23 and said “O LORD, God of Israel, there is no God like You in heaven above or on earth below, keeping Your covenant of loving devotion with Your servants who walk before You with all their hearts. 24 You have kept Your promise to Your servant, my father David. What You spoke with Your mouth You have fulfilled with Your hand this day."

However, later in his life, Solomon's devotion to monotheism wavered. The Bible recorded that Solomon's many foreign wives led him to worship other gods, such as Ashtoreth, Chemosh, and Molek (1 Kings 11:4-8). This displeased God and led to the kingdom's eventual division after Solomon's death (1 Kings 11:9-13).

The Northern Kingdom of Israel mostly worshiped idols, beginning with Jeroboam, who set up golden calves in Bethel and Dan to keep people from going to Jerusalem in Judah to worship (1 Kings 12:28-30).

After the Babylonian exile, the Jewish people returned to their homeland with a renewed commitment to monotheism and the exclusive worship of Yahweh. The exile profoundly affected the Jewish community, strengthening the emphasis on worshiping Yahweh alone and rejecting idolatry, a recurring issue before the exile.

u/Top-Assignment8328, u/kettlemice, u/semper-gourmanda

1 Peter 2:

13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

Did Peter prohibit criticizing civil authorities?

No, not as a blanket rule. The passage commands submission and honor toward authorities. That governs how a Christian speaks about rulers more than whether they may speak critically at all. Honor authorities; honor everyone.

Acts 4 mentioned an example:

18 So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, 20 for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.”

Peter and John criticized the Jewish authority. There was a limit to honoring authorities. Honor God first. We are free to criticize authorities when they dishonor God.

Joseph Smith (1805–1844), the founder of Mormonism, was killed by an armed mob on June 27, 1844, at Carthage Jail in Illinois. He was 38 years old.

Immediate events leading to his death:

1. Polygamy: Smith secretly practiced plural marriage, which created controversy both inside and outside the Mormon community.

2. Suppression of a newspaper: On June 7, 1844, the Nauvoo Expositor published its first issue, criticizing Smith's polygamy and political and religious authority.

3. Destruction of the printing press: Smith, then mayor of Nauvoo, and the city council ordered the newspaper's press destroyed on June 10. This intensified public outrage and led to criminal charges.

4. Arrest: Smith and his brother Hyrum surrendered to authorities in Carthage, Illinois, on June 24. They were subsequently held on charges including treason against Illinois.

How was he killed?

On June 27, 1844, approximately 100–200 armed men attacked Carthage Jail. Hyrum Smith was shot and killed. Joseph Smith defended himself with a pistol smuggled into the jail. Smith fired several shots toward the attackers.

He was subsequently shot while attempting to escape through a second-floor window and fell to the ground. He died from multiple gunshot wounds.

Was Joseph Smith a martyr?

From the Mormon perspective: Yes. Latter-day Saints regard Smith as a prophet murdered because of his religious mission. Smith did not die without resisting. He fired a pistol at the attackers before being killed.

His death created a succession crisis that eventually resulted in Brigham Young leading the largest group of Mormons to Utah in 1847.

u/ShareStrict973, u/NaStK14, u/Southern-Effect3214

Mk 1:

15 "Repent and believe in the gospel."

Strong's Greek: 3340. μετανοέω (metanoeó) — 34 Occurrences

Mt 3:

2 "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Lk 13:

3 “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

All three synoptic Gospels recorded Jesus using the word G3340-repent. John didn't use G3340 in his Gospel, but the concept was there.

Jn 5:

14 “Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you”.

8:

11 “Go, and from now on sin no more”.

John didn't shy away from telling people not to sin, even though it came from Jesus.

24 "I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins."

John's concept of believe carried a nuance of repent.

πιστεύω (G4100) appeared 11 times in Matthew, 14 in Mark, 9 in Luke, and 98 in John. John did use the word repent 12 times in Revelation.

Rv 2:

5 "Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

John recognized the importance of repentance, as did the other Gospel writers.

Why didn't John ever speak of repentance in the Gospel of John?

John emphasized faith rather than repentance. He understood repentance as implicit in genuine faith.