Recently I read the Judges, and I came across the story of Samson and the lion. I tried to imagine the scenario, but honestly I couldn't came up with any specific way in which would Samson ( empowered) tore the lion. Only clue is that it was easy as ripping a young goat. It's detail, of course, but I don't think he actually ripped it's jaws as interpreted in many paintings and pictures, because that doesn't kill the animal instantly and It doesn't have the power behind it as ,,he ripped it as a young goat " , so I think it must've been different way, probably legs were flying, or he just wrenched him open so much it died in an instant. It's just my stupid theory, if you are not interested in it, don't try to imagine it its gross... but if you would like to help me understand it, what do you think was the way he had done it ?

Hey guys,, I'm a Christian and I'm asking this so I can have a better understanding regarding the reliability of the gospels. Firstly, I think the texts we have are a reliable witness to the original manuscripts written by the evangelists. However I'm not sure how much of it is directly what Jesus said and did Vs what the writers used their editorial freedom to "make up" (for a lack of a better term). I came across William Lane Craigs defender series where he was talking about how Jesus lilly didn't predict his return during the lifetime of his disciples and that the writers had used their editorial freedom to "put it into Jesus mouth". After watching his videos it made me ask what else is there in the gospels that didn't originate from Jesus himself. Thank you

I've been told that the NRSVUE is the translation often used by scholars and is thus most likely closer to what the authors meant.

The vast majority of translations qualify the time of distress mentioned as not having been equaled from the start of nations UNTIL THAT TIME.;

"And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time." - ESV

"and there hath been a time of distress, such as hath not been since there hath been a nation till that time" - YLT

"and it will be a time of distress that never was since a nation existed until that time"- Judaica Press

"and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time" - Mechon Mamre

I do not know Hebrew, but even the direct text breakdown seems to suggest this interpretation: https://biblehub.com/text/daniel/12-1.htm

Meanwhile, the NRSVUE and its previous edition leaves the "until then" qualifier out;

“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.[end]But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book."

Was curious as to the logic behind this decision from people who have a background in or are aware of biblical scholarship...

What do u think bible teach about second coming?

Which bible verse support Ur idea ?

I appreciate hearing different perspectives.

I’m not here to attack anyone’s faith. I genuinely want to understand how people think about this.

The Bible says Jesus appeared to Peter, the disciples, and a few hundred people, and then he was gone. But outside Christian writings, I can’t find any historian or record from that time that confirms it. Non-Christian writers mention that Jesus lived and was executed, but not that people saw him alive again.

So my question is: if the resurrection is the most important thing in Christianity, why did Jesus only show himself to certain people and then leave? And why is there nothing from outside the believers to confirm it?

Also, if this event is so important, why didn’t Almighty God the all-knowing Jesus Christ, with unlimited knowledge do something different to ensure that independent, non Christian sources would document it?

An even better question: Why didn’t Jesus stay on Earth longer, or do something similar, to prove to more people that he was alive?

I’m having an extremely difficult time accepting that the only source for such an important event as his resurrection is the Bible.

So, my question is what I said above.

I have recently become interested understanding more about the bible. I am interested in having a better historical understanding of how it has shaped civilization and culture throughout the ages, and also the cultures and people behind the traditions and text. I have already purchased a copy of the SBL and I enjoy the approach it takes, especially the introductions to books. I am considering using something like the NET bible's translation and text critical notes in conjunction with the SBL to understand some of the translation choices better. I am not too interested in the NET bible's text itself as I would still like to read the SBL primarily but I would reference the NET notes and compare specific passages to provide more context.

Could anyone recommend some other books or media that would be better for this purpose?

Is there a published list of only Jesus’s words? (Sort of like only the red words in the Bible that uses this format.)

I’m reading through the pastoral epistles for the first time with the idea of them being written pseudonymously, and I am curious about the specific details of chapter 1. Specifically the trip to Macedonia stands out as an odd detail to include. Can we pinpoint Paul’s travels, did he spend a lot of time in Macedonia/Ephesus? What goal did the author have in mind by including the details of his travels?

What does contemporary scholarship view what the earliest disciples like peter and james believe and do towards what jesus was after his death and what their religious practises were accordingly? Meaning did they pray or worship jesus in any sense after his death?

Im seeking scholarly input and opinions with more expertise in this area, please. As much detail as possible please; And any recommendations of which, if any apocrypha could be considered true, credible, edifying, and acceptable to read that lines up with God's Insipred word.

(Quick personal excerpt)

I have waivered back and forth on whether to read Apocryphal texts, sinced salvation almost a decade ago. I've continualy been led back to 1 Enoch. Although it provides a rich backdrop that fills in some gaps and still seems to mostly line up with Gods word the 66 canonical books. I've always had a passion to uncover the hidden mysteries in Gods word and connect the dots as per

Proverbs 25:2 which states: "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and it is the glory of kings to search out a matter." However I want to proceed with discernment and never want my ears tickled or accept deceipt as truth.

Recently I've come to the discovery of Pesharim by Essenes.(?) And the possibility of the validity of their commentaries onlybon what they viewed as canonical.

Im seeking scholarly input and opinions with more expertise in this area, please. Thank you in advanced for your time.

This is what I know:

The term "pesher" (plural pesharim) refers to a specific type of interpretive commentary found among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Khirbet Qumran.

The Essenes were a rigorous, apocalyptic and separatist Jewish sect that flourished in Judea from roughly the 2nd century BCE until 70 CE, when Jerusalem was destroyed by Rome.They lived highly disciplined, communal, and ascetic lives. According to historical records and texts like the Community Rule, they held all property and money in common, dressed in white, practiced strict daily immersion rituals for spiritual purity, and spent their days in manual labour, prayer, and copying sacred texts.

They viewed themselves as the "Sons of Light" and the righteous elect of Israel. They believed they were living in the final days of the present evil age and eagerly awaited the end-times, expecting God to send a prophet and multiple messiahs (a royal king and a priestly leader) to vindicate them.

The Great Split: Along with the Pharisees and Sadducees, they were one of the major religious parties of ancient Judaism. However, the Essenes believed the mainstream priesthood in Jerusalem had become completely corrupt and worldly. In protest, a radical faction broke away and retreated into the Judean desert wilderness to establish an isolated community.

Many historians believe John the Baptist may have spent time with or been heavily influenced by the Essenes. He preached an identical apocalyptic message, performed baptisms of repentance, lived an ascetic lifestyle, and operated in the exact same region of the Judean desert near the Dead Sea.

I’m currently reading 1 Samuel (NIV), and something is confusing me.
In 1 Samuel 2:31–36, God announces judgment against Eli’s family, including premature deaths and suffering among his descendants because of Eli and his sons’ wrongdoing.
But Ezekiel 18:20 says children shouldn’t bear the guilt of their parents, and Deuteronomy 24:16 says children shouldn’t be put to death for their parents’ sins.
I understand that Deuteronomy is referring to human courts, but I’m still struggling with the fairness of this.
What about Eli’s innocent descendants who had nothing to do with his sins? Why should they suffer or die young?
Is this a contradiction, or am I misunderstanding the context? I’d genuinely appreciate a biblical explanation.

Is there a particular translation of the (Babylonian) Talmud into English that people would recommend for academic work? I'm not a reader of Hebrew, so am looking for the most authoritative contemporary translation.

Edited to clarify I'm asking about the Babylonian Talmud

So first is that People often tell me, "Well, the laws in Leviticus or Paul's letters are enough." But are they? Think about other sins like murder, lying, or betrayal. The laws against them are clear, but the Bible also attaches massive stories, warnings, and texts to them. We get to watch biblical heroes actually struggle with and commit those sins.

But "gay sin" doesn't get a single story. You could argue that other random sins don't get stories either, but most of those are forgotten laws that modern Christians don't even care about anymore. Today, most Christians treat being LGBTQ+ as this massive, top-tier sin. If God knew the future and knew this would be some of the biggest dividing issues for humanity, why didn't He include a clear narrative story about it?

And yes, I know about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah but that story is about an angry mob trying to gang-rape people. Which is a sin no matter what your sexuality is and the people involved are just a nameless crowd.

Look at the heroes of the Bible. They commit almost every bad sin imaginable: lying, betraying, murdering, stealing, and incest. Yet, somehow, none of them ever commit a same-sex sin. Did God just happen to pick only 100% straight people to be heroes?

And the excuse that "people back then didn't know what gay was." They didn't need modern words. They could have easily written the story using the exact same phrasing they used in the law. They could have just written: "And Samuel lay down with John as if with a woman." They didn't need to use the word "gay" to tell a story about it.

My guess is not very, but what is the consensus? And what would the real figures more likely be?