The idea of nonbelievers going to hell i mean.

Is that something that the Christians came up all on their own or there is a pre-christian Jewish origin of the idea?

Here's a story for you.

This guy started dating a girl when he was 17. They were both Christians and dated for a little over 3 years before getting married. Since they took their faith seriously, they decided to wait until marriage to have sex. It wasn't easy, but they managed to get married as virgins.

He loved her, thought she was a good person with similar values, and genuinely believed they would build a life together. There were some issues and differences during the relationship, but he figured most of them came down to maturity and experience. They were young and had never experienced married life or sexual intimacy before, so he assumed things would naturally develop once they got married.

Well, that didn't exactly happen.

After getting married, he realized their sex life was much more complicated than he had expected. She experienced pain during penetration, which made intercourse difficult. On top of that, she showed very little initiative and seemed to have a much lower interest in sex than he did.

And it wasn't just about frequency. She didn't like giving oral sex, wasn't interested in experimenting with much, and seemed uncomfortable with several expressions of desire from him, including talking openly about certain things. He missed the spontaneity, curiosity, and feeling that she actually wanted to explore that side of their relationship too.

He wasn't expecting a porn star in his bedroom. He just wanted to have a sex life with his wife, feel desired, and feel like they were figuring things out together.

At first, he was patient. He thought it was inexperience, that she needed time to get comfortable, and that maybe the pain could be treated. But the years went by, and things barely changed.

Here's the important part: he didn't just sit around complaining and expect her to fix everything on her own. He researched treatment options, looked for professionals, and even paid for treatment for her. The problem was that she kept putting off actually following through.

She would say she was going to do it, acknowledge how important it was, start on the first day, and then stop. Weeks would pass, then months. He would wait, trying not to pressure her and hoping she'd pick it back up on her own. Eventually, he'd realize nothing was happening and bring it up again.

Then they'd have another conversation, she'd say she'd start again, make an attempt, and shortly afterward drop it all over again.

This cycle has been going on for at least three years.

What wears him down the most is that she will talk about the problem. It's not necessarily that she denies there's an issue or refuses to acknowledge it. She can discuss it, say she wants things to improve, and promise to take action. But she rarely turns those words into consistent action.

He can't just leave it in her hands and trust that it'll get taken care of, because whenever he does, months go by and nothing changes.

He's also tried to understand whether there might be some kind of trauma behind her difficulties. According to her, there was no sexual abuse, and she's been adamant about that, swearing that it isn't the case. From what he can tell, she doesn't show any obvious signs of fear or nervousness that would make him suspect that kind of trauma either. So, as far as he knows, that doesn't seem to be the explanation.

Obviously, he can't know everything going on inside her head, and you can't rule out someone's experiences based on how they behave. But he also doesn't want to invent an explanation that she herself denies. Whatever the cause, there's a real problem that remains unresolved.

There's another issue that's been weighing on him too: household responsibilities.

He ended up taking on a large share of the housework, including cooking, cleaning, and keeping things organized. It's not that she literally never does anything, but he feels like he's the one who has to take the initiative for almost everything. He's talked to her about it, asked for a more balanced division of responsibilities, and suggested different arrangements. Some things improved, but he still feels like he's the one who has to notice what's wrong, organize things, and make sure stuff actually gets done.

Over time, he started noticing a pattern. Whether it's intimacy or household responsibilities, he's almost always the one identifying the problem, starting the conversation, looking for solutions, and trying to make changes happen. She might agree with him during a conversation, but the practical effort rarely lasts unless he brings it up again or follows up.

And that's worn him down because it no longer feels like just a problem with sex or chores. It's the feeling that he's carrying major parts of their marriage on his own.

The hardest part is that his wife isn't a bad person. He loves her, recognizes her good qualities, and knows she has feelings too. This isn't a story about cheating, abuse, or some horrible event that would make the decision obvious.

They've been married for six years, on top of the three-plus years they dated, and he's still stuck in the same cycle of talking, trying to fix things, getting his hopes up, and being disappointed again.

He doesn't want to force his wife to do anything she doesn't want to do, let alone have sex out of obligation. But he also can't keep pretending he's happy with a situation that's been hurting him for years. What he wants is for her to genuinely want to work on the problem and take concrete steps herself, rather than simply agreeing that something needs to be fixed.

And that's where the dilemma comes in. He married her because he loved her and believed they could build a life together. He doesn't think the whole relationship was a lie, and he doesn't think she's a bad person. But he's starting to realize that loving someone doesn't necessarily mean you're compatible enough to build the kind of marriage you both need.

At the same time, he wonders if he's being selfish, if he should be more patient, or if he's expecting too much. She's a good person, and ending a marriage over problems that can be difficult to explain to outsiders makes him feel guilty.

But there's another side to this too: how many more years is he supposed to wait? How many times can he hear that things will be different, watch her start something and then abandon it, before accepting that maybe the change he's hoping for just isn't coming?

What would you do in this situation?

How do you know if there's still something worth building, or if he's just dragging out a situation that's making him miserable?

And how do you make a decision like this when you love the person, don't see them as the villain, and still feel like you can't keep living with the marriage the way it is?

There's one more detail that shows just how worn down he's become: he's given her an ultimatum about divorce four separate times.

This happened in September 2024, August 2025, October 2025, and September 2026. Each time, things reached a point where he told her that if things continued the way they were, he wouldn't be able to stay married. He made it clear that he was seriously considering divorce and that this wasn't just another casual complaint.

And yet, after all of that, things remained pretty much the same.

It's not like she has no idea how serious the situation is. She knows the marriage is at risk, knows how much he's suffering, and knows this isn't some passing frustration. Even so, the same pattern of promises, brief attempts at improvement, and eventually giving up keeps repeating itself.

I was raised by an atheist in an atheist family that looks down upon those who believe in God.
Ive come to believe in God, even though I do have doubts and even more so struggle with identifying if the God I’ve come to connect with is the Christian God or some other entity.

I’m reading the Bible for the first time, starting with the gospels.

Very often I come across a verse or phrase that I don’t understand or comprehend
(For example in LUKE 8:56 why did Jesus tell the parents of the healed child not to tell anyone what happened when he had previously encouraged others to spread the word of his miracles?)
I’m not looking to challenge it or find reasons not to believe I just want to understand
This is one of dozens of questions I’ve run into.

Does anybody have any websites, apps, or resources, etc., they’d recommend to answer quick questions as I’m reading??

Any thoughts on using AI to help explain verses or concepts as im going through it?

I've been in bible classes since 3rd grade to now being in a very good church, but I came across these videos independently recently by a guy named Dan McClellan who claims to be a bible scholar but his lessons are making no sense, this is the last video I watched by him where he tries to make the ten commandment out like suggestions, and he rewrites the entire definition of the ten:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raZqjCeOIdY&t=309s

I really am not a full bible scholar by any reach and am still learning things, Is this lesson right?

I've recently been curious about Ezekiel's prediction of the destruction of Tyre at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, which seemingly failed to materialize. Drawing upon Ezekiel 26:3, some defend against the accusation of failed prophecy by arguing that Babylon was merely the first of "many nations" that God brought against Tyre. There are several difficulties with this interpretation, but one that caught my eye was Ezekiel 26:7. The NRSVue has it as:

For thus says the Lord God: I will bring against Tyre from the north King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, king of kings, together with horses, chariots, cavalry, and a great and powerful army.

However, the Septuagint version of the verse explicitly describes Nebuchadnezzar's army as multinational. From NETS:

For this is what the Lord says: O Sor, behold, I am bringing against you Nabouchodonosor, king of Babylon, from the north — he is king of kings — together with horses and chariots and riders and a gathering of very many nations.

Do scholars have any opinions on whether the "many nations" reading is the older of the two?

The children of the world are members one of another. When the Holy One desires to give healing to the world, he smites one just man amongst them, and for his sake heals all the rest. Whence do we learn this? From the saying, “He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities.” (Isaiah 53:5) (Numbers, Pinchus, 218a)

Why do scholars often attribute Jesus’ claims to divinity to the Gospel writers rather than the historical Jesus?

I’ve noticed that when Jesus says something that could suggest divine authority or identity, it’s often argued that the saying reflects the theology of the early Christian community rather than something the historical Jesus actually said.

I’m curious how scholars determine this. The Gospels are our earliest surviving narrative accounts of Jesus’ life, and much of what we reconstruct about him comes from these same sources. Paul’s letters also suggest that remarkably elevated beliefs about Jesus existed very early.

I understand that some Gospels place greater emphasis on Jesus’ immediate earthly ministry, particularly his mission to Israel, while others, especially John, emphasize his divine identity more explicitly, even within the same books. But I don’t necessarily see these emphases as contradictory. Couldn’t different authors simply have focused on different aspects of Jesus’ life and teachings?

I also recognize that early Christian belief in Jesus’ divinity doesn’t automatically establish that Jesus himself claimed to be divine. But what historical criteria justify accepting certain sayings as authentic while treating others, particularly those suggesting divinity, as later theological developments?

Is there a risk of circular reasoning here, where sayings are considered inauthentic because they reflect a high Christology, while the historical Jesus is reconstructed as having a lower Christology partly because those sayings have been excluded?

I’d appreciate scholarly perspectives on how historians approach this question, including arguments both for and against the authenticity of these sayings.

Hi,
In the last few years I’ve really got into biblical studies and I would like to consider doing a Masters degree in the discipline.

I have a young family and I work full time and this is giving me pause as to whether realistically a Masters is something that I could undertake right now. I already have a masters degree in philosophy but that was 20 years ago when I was a full time student.

Has anyone done a part time Biblical Studies Masters degree whilst also juggling full time employment and family life? If so, is it something that you found manageable?

Finally, having not written academically for twenty years I’m slightly concerned whether I’ll just be too rusty. I’ve continued to read academically - although finding the time is not always easy. I am passionately interested in the New Testament and would like to read more widely in order to get up to speed on current academic debate but I wonder if I need to do a year or twos intensive reading before applying anywhere. For those who undertook a biblical studies degree in later life, how did you prepare?

Sorry for all the questions. I look forward to any answers people might have.

Thanks.

I'm looking for any sources that enlist/contrast the major differences between LXX and the Vulgate: words, phraseology, additions, omitions and rewording. Is there such a thing? Thanks for the replies :)

It was given to my great grandfather in 1966 wallaceburg ontario canada, I can give any extra info regarding it if needed. We just found it in my basement after years and my grandmother is so happy and we'd like to know a little about it.

- many original Bible stories (the main classic too) like the gerdenr of eden, the tower of badel, and EVEN THE 10 COMMANDMENTS, are all heavily inspired by the society of Mesopotamia, which is older than both jesus and the bible...

These Bible stories we read since childhood might just be a copy and paste, which got me in a mental breakdown because then these aren't originally ours, they arent even real because these weee like everyday stories in Mesopotamia...basically in a mordern view imagine spider man becomes a religion for another group and they still elements from marvel and spider to make him...thats what basicaly the original authors did...(maybe idk just a guess)...idk ive been questioning...ive also been reading the Bible back and forth and this is kinda scary for me to say but the devil barely killed people, compared to what God has done, God has done the flood, possibly killing childern...innocent pregnant woman and babies...

God literally made one of his most loyal followers suffer just to prove to the devil he was right....idk what to believe now...maybs im just wrong or idk what im saying but if this is technically real wouldn't it just mean ive wasted my time as a Christian?

I’ve been reading about the textual dispute surrounding Luke 23:34a, where Jesus says, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

I understand that the saying is absent from some important early manuscripts, including P75 and Codex Vaticanus, which has led scholars to argue that it was added later.

However, I’ve also come across several scholars who defend its originality:

Bart Ehrman and David Flusser argue that the passage may have been removed because of growing anti-Jewish attitudes among early Christians.

Nathan Eubank, in A Disconcerting Prayer: On the Originality of Luke 23:34a (2010), defends the longer reading using textual evidence and early Christian interpretations.

Dirk Jongkind (2018) also favors originality, but questions whether anti-Jewish motivations adequately explain the omission.

On the other side, Jason Whitlark and Mikeal Parsons (2006) argue that the saying was inserted partly to produce seven sayings of Jesus from the cross.

I’m curious which explanation is better supported by the manuscript evidence and what we know about early scribal practices. How much weight should be given to the early manuscripts that omit the saying versus the arguments that it was deliberately removed?

Sources:
Eubank (2010), Journal of Biblical Literature: https://doi.org/10.2307/25765950
Whitlark and Parsons (2006), New Testament Studies: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688506000117
Jongkind (2018), Tyndale House: https://tyndalehouse.com/2018/11/15/father-forgive-them-the-variant-in-luke-2334a/

Who is the “Mystery Babylon” referred to in Scripture?

What does the Bible actually reveal about her identity, and what evidence does Scripture provide for understanding who or what Babylon represents?

Is “Mystery Babylon” referring to a literal city, a particular nation or empire, a religious system, a political power, or some combination of these?

I’m particularly interested in examining the biblical context of Revelation 17–18 and comparing the description of Babylon with the Old Testament prophecies and other references to Babylon throughout Scripture.

Hello, I saw someone talking about this passage and how it does not make sense that a woman should have to prove her virginity with physical evidence, and God would know this since He created women. The parents are supposed to present a bloody cloth as evidence of her virginity, but it is known now that not every woman bleeds when she loses her virginity and that a hymen can break during non-sexual activities. Can someone explain passage please?

I've read some of the comments in posts from Section VI and I'd like a fresher perspective. I have some questions below and would really appreciate well thought out answers from well meaning folks.

I am a young man who will continue undergraduate studies, with a serious leaning toward Philosophy, though I am a Biology major with a love for STEM. I feel a serious longing to understand the God the Bible leads me to. He has been really working in my heart to deepen my faith in Him, and I have seen Him move in my life. This returns me to an old and pleasant desire to pursue graduate level degrees in seminary.

I also find myself gradually acknowledging the bad aftertaste in my mouth after being a part of the evangelical circle. I attend an SBC church and think that my heart is opening to more liberal interpretations of scripture often in ways that would put me at odds with my evangelical brothers and sisters.

My questions are:

1. What wisdom can any scholars who have grown in faith through their graduate studies impart to me at this point in my life, regarding helpful methods of decision making for a career trajectory? I want my life to be about knowing God deeper and deeper and if I don't become a pastor I see myself a future elder that preaches occasionally, with a well paying secular profession.

2. As for where I am now, what can I do to know Him more? Aside from regular time in Scripture, prayer, and encouragement in church? Or is it just that consistent pursuance over time is what I must continue practicing? Like doing what I'm already doing.

I read a good bit, and most recently picked up Gregory's The Life of Moses. I hold dearly Tillich's the Courage to Be and am a fan of Kierkegaard. I am getting interested in what I think is called apophatic theology.

"Inside heads created gods, the skies and the ground."

That's my understanding of Genesis 1:1 when I read it from the Hebrew text.

How do we go from B (Inside) reshit (heads) bara (created) elohim (gods) ha shamayim (the skies) wat (and) ha aresh (the ground) to "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?

Working on a restoration of the original Bible, I want to understand what went wrong so I don't fall in the same trappings as my predecessor. Can you describe me the process that goes from the original hebrew to "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?

Just thinking about it.. What if Jezus never was a person but means 'love and peace amongst people no matter what'. Joseph and Mary mean the average working man and his average wife. Maria representing the background woman running the household who birth the Christ and spread it amongst the men.

So this is something that intrigues me. Since he's described to be all knowing, it's said that he would have known that the first people would eat from the fruit.

Yet before that, he speaks so nicely to them and even walks with them through the garden.

My question if he knew beforehand, wouldn't that worry him, instead of engaging with them playfully , wouldn't he then caution the more?

I'm an amateur with an interest in New Testament scholarship. I've recently done a reading of the Synoptic Gospels to highlight things that interest me. I find the recurring secrecy in the Gospel of Mark quite gripping. I'm looking for articles/books on the Gospel of Mark that I can read to shed further light on this topic. I'm interested in getting a better understanding of why scholars think this was an important theme to Mark and what they think it tells us about the Jesus movement.

Books that deal with the Gospel of Mark in general are welcome too!

Hi, I was just wondering if there is any tradition or evidence that Peter's actual father was named Jonah, or if perhaps, Jesus was trying to link Peter to himself as his spiritual son since Jesus was to give the people the sign of Jonah?

Probably a reach, but I just thought I would ask.