What does it mean to interpret the Bible literally? Here are some common definitions from a dictionary for ‘literal’:

Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.
Word for word; verbatim: a literal translation.
Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment; factual; prosaic: a literal description; a literal mind.

So what does it mean then to ‘take the Bible literally?’ Which definition are we referring to when we say ‘I take the Bible literally?’

There is a spectrum of literal biblical reading, but basically it boils down to the degree to which one believes in the historicity (in the modern sense) of the Bible.
Archeological evidence only goes back as far as a steele mentioning the "House of David," so for modern academics, the historicity of say, Moses, Abraham, and Adam and Eve are all at least suspect.  Opinion varies as to whether, say, a baby boy who should have been murdered was actually set adrift in a boat made of bull rushes. A literalist would say, yes, this literally happened, and a liberal would say that it is a mere birth narrative to set the tone for who Moses would be.  Likewise, a liberal would say that clearly a few Hebrew slaves probably escaped across a "Reed Sea" (a swamp) whereas a literalist would, with no evidence to the contrary, state that in fact 525,000 Israelite men plus their wives and children pass through the Red Sea, with the waves held back on either side and Charleton Heston in front holding a stick.  The same analysis holds for an actual Adam and Eve, whether or not a woman named Tamar really did seduce her father-in-law, and a whole host of other stories.
As one who is probably more literal than most, I would suggest there are a few categories in which to consider the question:

Parables and other stories identified as such:
When Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan, for example, he pretty clearly identifies it as such.  Now, I've driven through the West Bank up from Jericho to Jerusalem, and along the way, you can pass the "Inn of the Good Samaritan."  Some people will say that is in fact a real event in history.  This is an extreme form of literalism which negates the possibility of Jesus using metaphor- a stance mostly restricted to ultra-conservatives.

Historical events that have miraculous involvement:
Very few scholars would now argue that there was no King David.  Very few also doubt that there was a big Philistine named Goliath whom he killed.  The question is typically along the lines of, "Was he really just a boy with a sling?"  As a literalist who believes that God does intervene in history, I tend to view this as an actual event that occurs more or less as the Bible describes it.  Could it have been four stones in his pouch instead of five?  For me, that would be an irrelevant detail - for an inerrantist it would be a requirement.  For a liberal, the entire story was probably an embellishment after a real knock down, drag out battle, and the details grew in the retelling.

Prehistorical / Other more figurative:
Genesis 1 -11, parts of Daniel, Zechariah, and Revelation are special cases, in that scholars often disagree as to whether or not these were meant to be understood as history or legend.  Along these lines, Job appears in the section of the Old Testament called the "Ketuvi'im" or "Writings" alongside Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes.  It may be that the original author intended this as a story all along, or it could be real, or it could be "historical fiction."  As there is no title page on the book of Job, it could be analagous to finding one of Shakespeare's plays - and that could mean anything from Henry V to Romeo and Juliet.  Imagine if you had no historical reference to figure it out.  Likewise, Daniel is not billed as historical (it's in the Nevi'im), and yet it has more historical detail in certain points than many textbooks.

The question with all of this then is the degree to which a reader ascribes historicity to a narrative.  Keep in mind that prior to Thuycidides, even the very notion of a story that attempts to merely describe historical events (while still making a point) wasn't really even an idea, and you'll see why there is controversy.  People can argue hermeneutics (the science of how a text should be interpreted) and archeology all day long - the fact is that there is a choice that must be made a priori, and understanding the implications of that for one's theology is the real heart of the matter.

What does it mean to interpret the Bible literally? It means to read the bible and believe what it is saying.

People who take the bible literally would (for example) claim that the Earth was created in 6 days. Time is relative to speed, and the speed has been slowing down. Why couldn't 20 billion years happen in a day?

That the Genesis story is not a parable and that it's historically accurate; however these are the types of people I consider "hard core" literalists. Whereas some people would rationalize the story by saying that 6 days is not the same as 6 days is now. If you would like, research the speed of light slowing down.

Non-literalist would say that the story is to be reflected on and not taken as actual fact. They point to the words in the bible about Jesus: Ok.

Matthew 13:34 NIV: Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. Yes.

This causes a problem with taking the bible literally, how can you take the stories literally when Jesus himself spoke in parables? It becomes a reciprocating problem. Not if you understand the parables.

The problem is, where does it stop? For example, if I believe that the world wasn't created in 6 days, or that Jesus didn't really walk on water, where do you take the bible literally? You've just jumped down the rabbit's hole. Sure, logically until more is thoroughly explained things that appear unbelievable, then become logical. I became an Atheist, after reading Genesis as well. I overlooked the six day start, but got snared by Cain running into the mountains to marry his wife. I was like no way did dude marry his Mom on a mountain. That seemed to me illogical, I would rather yank out my eyes and sand off my tongue, then marry mo Mom. Interesting thing happened though. I was writing a computer program that take sections of DNA and meld them together. The process I found exciting, I liked the idea of creating a real dragon to kill. Note: I'm not so into that idea anymore.

Anyways, In my DNA research I found that paternity tests where not limited to Father Son. You could do Grandpa to Grandson, Great Grandpa to Great Grandson, and 1000 Greats Grandpa to 1000 Greats Grandson. I found that it pointed to One Man, not once but twice. The first branch being Adam, and the second being Noah. So I did a little more research and found out that Cains sisters where not mentioned. In fact very little history about women was recorded at all. So the Idea of Cain grabbing a sister and running seemed more realistic. Not that I have any sisters, but I watched a lot of Porn in my life, and Brothers and Sisters do do it.

So, somethings in the bible are to be taken literally and something are to be taken as a parable. Which passages are which? Who knows, we'll find out when we get there. This does complicate the teachings, I'll not deny, but I have found that all the parables are analogical stories. So a simple, "Is he making an analogy?" question simply needs asked before deciding the correct interpretation. Also, the answer key as to understanding the parables was given within the text, so anyone really listening to what he was trying to say would see the pure truth to what he was revealing. (Matthew 13:35)

So what about the Six Days? I recommend watching a movie called "The Genesis Code" I highly suggest you watch it. It shows how both Science and 6 Days are both correct with simple logic. Personally I feel that Correct Science will have Religion back it up, and Correct Religion will have Science back it up, for science is only a description of what God does, and how he does it.

Why should it be taken Literally? For Truth to be True, it must describe itself truthfully, and it must Truly represent Truth. An incorrect representation of the truth is not True. Therefore since the Position that God has taken as "described" by himself, is that he speaks Truth, if that where to be True. Then all that is said is a True representation of the Truth. Not literally taking what is said, is by nature a misrepresentation of the Truth and is not True. If you do not Truly do this, then you cannot Truly get the Truth that he is trying to deliver.


How did Adam and Eve die? I have a few related questions:

How did Adam and Eve die?
Who died first - Adam or Eve?
Were Adam and Eve buried after their deaths?

Adam (and presumably Eve) simply died of old age.

  Genesis 5:5 (NIV)
  5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

As for where they're buried, I don't think that's recorded anywhere in the Bible. Who died first certainly isn't recorded; that bit of trivia likely wouldn't have been important to people of the time.

The moment they ate the forbidden fruit of forbidiness.

  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,
  for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die (Genesis 2:17).


What is the difference between Calvinist "nature" and "nature" in the sense of the Hypostatic union? In Christ, one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human.

This is called the Hypostatic Union. The following quoted points explain the relevant details of what the Hypostatic Union is and what it entails. They have been obtained from a Google search, and from a major Church that accepts the Hypostatic Union.

  in Christ the two natures, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person. They are not joined in a moral or accidental union (Nestorius), nor commingled (Eutyches), and nevertheless they are substantially united. (article)
  The union in Christ is not a union of two natures directly with one another, but a union of the two in one hypostasis; thus they are distinct yet inseparable, and each acts in communion with the other. (article)
  "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity." Thus everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity." (CCC468)
  Obviously there can be only one infinite being, only one God. [...] God is a simple being or substance excluding every kind of composition, physical or metaphysical. (article)
  Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but cooperate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation. Christ's human will "does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will." (CCC475)
  the Word was joined with humanity (Col. 2:9).  Jesus' divine nature was not altered.  Also, Jesus is not merely a man who "had God within Him" nor is he a man who "manifested the God principle." He is God in flesh, second person of the Trinity. (carm.org article)

Note that the human nature is not absorbed or assumed into the Divine nature. Instead, it is assumed by the Divine Person of Christ. A human being is not assumed by a Divine being, a human nature is assumed by a Divine Person.

Above I am describing certain key features of the Hypostatic Union. There is no argument that the Hypostatic Union is the correct way to see Christ. I think it is, but that is not what this question is about.

My limited understanding of the Calvinist view of the two human natures is as follows:

Calvinists believe that if we are saved, we have "two warring natures". One of these natures is the sanctified nature, and the other is the non-sanctified nature. I have heard these described as two separate wills. I have also heard of these described quite generally as two "parts". (I do not understand what it means for a nature to be a "part" of a person, except in the partless sense of the Hypostatic Union, described above).

This Calvinist view sounds familiar, because (according to the Hypostatic Union) in Christ there are two natures and two wills. But they are never "at war" in Christ: Christ's human nature always and entirely submits to His Divine nature.

Is the Calvinist use of "nature" the same as the use when talking about the human and Divine natures of Christ? If they are different, by virtue of what exactly are they different? Is what Calvinists describe some form of hypostasis, and if not, what is the relation, if any?

Regeneration, initiated by new birth, is the Evangelical belief that when a person believes in Christ they are mystically united into Christ.  Their old nature dies in him and a new nature is born.  Rebirth, or regeneration is when the image of God is restored within a sinner. Calvin thought of it more in the fullest sense of continuing into sanctification and resurrection of the body. Typically Protestants in terms of the doctrinal mechanics of regeneration identify is as the inward renewal beginning with justification by faith and continuing through the process of sanctification.

The two natures we are talking about are simply 'ourselves' sanctified and those aspects of ourselves not sanctified.  These two parts of ourselves war against each other.  That is why, for example, Paul say's:

  So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. (Galatians 5:16-17, NIV)

In a completely absolutely different sense, a human being was assumed into a divine being, so that two fully different natures subsist in the incarnation.  There is no parallel of the incarnation with sanctification, so the question seems to be an identification of a gross ignorance of regeneration. It is actually equivalent to a question someone asked Jesus:

  You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again. ’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
   “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.
   “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? (John 3:7-10, NIV)

The best way I can explain it to a person that considers water baptism as the initiation into God's kingdom, rather then personal faith, is to say: 'Imagine everything you think that happens in water baptism happens when a person believes in Christ.' The resulting two natures, sanctified and not sanctified, is the Protestant understanding of the two natures after regeneration initiated by faith in Christ.

The way Calvin used the terminology of nature is completely different than what Chalcedon refer to with nature. For Calvin the unity between the Logos and His humanity is akin to psychosomatic unity between human's soul and body. This is why R C Sproul stated that God can't die, the one died on the Cross was His humanity not the Logos. For Chalcedon the unity is between a divine person with His humanity. Why this is different than that of Calvin? Because His humanity belongs to the Logos, the only subject who suffer was a divine person. Nature can't die, a person does. St. Leo the Great can confess that God died on the Cross. While Calvin can't. Because for him the Logos is not the only subject of Christ.

All are agreed, however, that the Creed affirms that the two natures exist in one person. However, the debate’s major point of contention was the identity of the one person. In other words, do we simply identify the person with the divine Logos (Cyril’s position) or with the whole Christ (Calvin’s position)?
Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, p. 337.

Calvin also teach that on the Cross there was real chasm between the Father and the Son. The Son was damned to be burned in Hell for us. This show how he distinguished the Logos and His humanity. For Calvin the Logos can't die and suffer in Hell but His humanity can.

But we must seek a surer explanation, apart from the Creed, of Christ's descent into hell. The explanation given to us in God's Word is not only holy and pious, but also full of wonderful consolation. If Christ had died only a bodily death, it would have been ineffectual. No, it was expedient at the same time for Him to undergo the severity of God's vengeance, to appease His wrath and satisfy His just judgment. For this reason He must grapple hand in hand with the armies of hell and the dread of everlasting death.... No wonder, then, if He is said to have descended into hell, for He suffered the death that God in His wrath had inflicted upon the wicked! ...He paid a greater and more excellent price in suffering in His soul the terrible torments of a condemned and forsaken man.
Calvin, Institutes, 2:16:10


Who is the best prophet in Christianity? and is he the best human being in the eyes of God? The degree of how well God is worshipped varies from person to person, some do better deeds, have better morals, or do greater sacrifices than others, so it seems natural that there will be some human who is the best human in the eyes of God. I'm curious if Christians have some consensus on who is the best human or the most perfect human being, in terms of following God's orders.

I am asking this question with the assumption that Jesus is not human and does not worship someone/something since He is God himself (my assumption may be wrong). I guess my question is more about who is the best worshipper of God? If it's Jesus then did Jesus actually "worship"? How so?

There is no consensus within Christianity about who is the 'best' prophet.

The Christian belief in the universal sinfulness of human beings (apart from God's grace) tends to mean that such comparisons are not encouraged.

As you intimated, Jesus is an exception to this. The vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus is both fully God and fully human. If your question had not excluded him he would unquestionably be 'the best prophet' in all senses, and he is also considered the 'best human being'.

Since there isn't a consensus (or doctrine) on this, we can only have the opinions of various Christians, which we cannot discuss on this site.

Interesting question

Moses, Paul, David.

Paul was such a good example he suggested we should follow it to know
how to live a life committed to God.

Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. 1 Cor 11:1

Moses was a very humble man, even though he was the leader of Israel, he
managed to not let his position go to his head.

Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth. Numbers 12:3

David as a King, still humbled himself and walked closely with God through
his struggles, as reflected in Psalms.

You save the humble but bring low those whose eyes are haughty.
You, O LORD, keep my lamp burning; my God turns my darkness into light.
With your help I can advance against a troop; with my God I can scale a wall.
Psalm 18:27-29

We would hold these up as examples, but not worthy of comparing saying one
is better than the other, rather they reflect different experiences and
approaches.


Was the temple built in 46 years or was it 46 years old during Jesus' time? I stumbled on this verse again and would like some clarification:

  Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? John 2:20 (KJV)

Was the temple 46 years old at that time?
Was the temple built in 46 years?

If it's the second option, how could it be true that the temple took so long to build? Were they short of labour, money, etc.?

It means it took that long to build. This is apparent from the fact that they were challenging Christ's claim that He would build it in three days, when it's taken 46 years of work thus far.

From Barnes' Notes on the Bible

  Forty and six years ... - The temple in which they then were was that
  which was commonly called "the second temple," built after the return
  of the Jews from Babylon. See the notes at Matthew 21:12. This temple
  Herod the Great commenced repairing, or began to rebuild, in the
  eighteenth year of his reign - that is, sixteen years before the birth
  of Christ (Jos. 'Ant.,' b. xv. Section 1). The main body of the temple
  he completed in "nine years and a half" (Jos. 'Ant.,' xv. 5, 6), yet
  the temple, with its outbuildings, was not entirely complete in the
  time of our Saviour. Herod continued to ornament it and to perfect it
  even until the time of Agrippa (Jos. 'Ant.,' b. xx. chapter viii.
  Section 11). As Herod began to rebuild the temple sixteen years before
  the birth of Jesus, and as what is here mentioned happened in the
  thirtieth year of the age of Jesus, so the time which had been
  occupied in it was "forty-six years." This circumstance is one of the
  many in the New Testament which show the accuracy of the evangelists,
  and which prove that they were well acquainted with what they
  recorded. It demonstrates that their narration is true. Impostors do
  not trouble themselves to be very accurate about names and dates, and
  there is nothing in which they are more liable to make mistakes.

A bible believing Christian who treats the bible as a primary source and apocryphal sources and historical dates as secondary and not canonical, would say this is a confirmation of Daniel's seventy "week" (70 x 7 years = 490 years). (See Genesis 29:27 for use of week to mean 7 years).

The temple (the second temple, decreed by Cyrus and built by Zerubbabel et al. see Ezra) is rebuilt within the first 7 weeks (49 years) and the street and the wall.

Edit:
The temple would be 483 years (7+62 weeks) at the time of his crucifixion, as according to Daniel's prophecy.


Do Christians still make icons? Do Christians still make icons?

Typically, it's easy to find Christian icons from the Middle Ages. But are there any Christian icons in the modern age?

Yes, there are lots of examples! There are still professional Iconographers who go around painting Iconography for a living!
In the Orthodox Church the Temples are traditionally fully covered in frescoes.
Here is an example:

Since this is a great part of the Orthodox Church, there are many people who have been trained in this Holy Art and are going around the world adorning Temples.

In fact, at this very moment, the church which I am going to is having it's hitherto white and barren walls covered in frescoes! An iconographer from Serbia is doing all the painting of the frescoes throughout the whole church. At the moment, though, only slightly more than the dome is done.

Here is a snapshot of the dome from a little while ago:

There is also a slightly outdated video of the Iconographer at work which can be seen here.

And if you are really interested, every now and then, some very good Iconographer will hold an Iconography work-shop... I have never attended one, but from what I hear they are very fun.

I even found a link on OrthodoxWiki which has a list of Modern Iconographers.

Also, probably of great interest to you, is the website of one Iconographer, Vladimir Grygorenko. Take a look at his portfolio if you want to know the answer to this question...

And, a little more which probably won't be useful to you, here is a link which gives the Orthodox Iconographer some rules and prayers as guidance.
One of the prayers is as follows:

  A Prayer Before Beginning an Icon:

  O Divine Lord of all that exists, Thou hast illumined the Apostle and Evangelist Luke with Thy Holy Spirit, thereby enabling him to represent Thy most Holy Mother, the One who held Thee in her arms and said: The Grace of Him Who has been born of me is spread through the world!
  Enlighten and direct my soul, my heart and my spirit. Guide the hands of Thine unworthy servant so that I may worthily and perfectly portray Thine Icon, that of Thy Mother, and all the Saints, for the glory, joy and adornment of Thy Holy Church.
  Forgive my sins and the sins of those who will venerate these icons and who, kneeling devoutly before them, give homage to those they represent.
  Protect them from all evil and instruct them with good counsel. This I ask through the intercession of Thy most Holy Mother, the Apostle Luke, and all the Saints. Amen.

...
Simply put:

Yes, Christians do still make Icons!

Google "Icons religious modern" and click the "images" heading on the search page to see lots of examples.  I wouldn't call all these things icons, but some of them surely are.  (Googling without "religious" brought mostly "icons" in the computer sense.)


Did Thomas actually touch Jesus's side? John 20:24-29
  24Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
  26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
  28Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
  29Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

I either always lazily read or remember being taught that Thomas actually touched Jesus's side (or maybe The Incredulity of Saint Thomas by Caravaggio influenced me). But under close reading it appears that Thomas didn't touch Jesus, he merely saw Jesus because the scripture doesn't explicitly say he touched Jesus and Jesus said "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (emphasis added mine).

Is this a good interpretation and/or is there any other scripture that would support or not support this?

Safe answer: John 20 is the only passage of scripture that discusses this event, so the short answer is - we can't say for sure.  In general, we need to be cautious about "reasoning from an absence of scripture."

My guess: Thomas made a statement to the effect of "I refuse to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and the only thing that could change my mind would be if He Himself appeared and proved it to me".  He is pretty "over the top" with his demand, because not only did he say Jesus had to appear, but that Thomas would have to actually stick his fingers in each of Jesus' wounds!  I think he was trying to make it very clear where he stood on the matter!

Jesus responded by appearing to him and offering to grant his request.  Thomas appears to have been shocked and humbled by this, and seems very repentant, judging by his statement, "My Lord and my God!"  I have a very hard time believing that Thomas proceeded to probe each of His wounds with his fingers, but that's just a guess.

One more interesting fact is that, when apostles of Jesus Christ saw he was crucified & dead on cross and after his burial. They were worried and they were almost convinced to go to their fishing business, it is mentioned in Bible, in few places even after seeing Jesus Christ, they only moved to do their fishing business, their faith was same(weak) when Jesus was with them physically and even after his crucifixion, St. Thomas was not exception where as he was bit high when compared with others that he expressed his condition as (I will believe Jesus resurrection only when I touch His Wound). So with a condition set to his believe how could St. Thomas could have travelled long way to spread Good News in Asia. Jesus appeared to apostles when Thomas was there and asked him to touch His wounds, that proof only could make St. Thomas to make him believe Jesus resurrection, But Jesus Christ said when St. Thomas touched His wound, you touched My wound and you believe in Me, Blessed as those who have not seen and have believed


Is God always near in times of need? How are certain verses that describe God as always being there in times of need such as Psalm 46:1 or Psalm 145:14 compatible with verses such as Psalm 10:1 and Psalm 22:1-2 that describe God hiding himself and forsaking David.

God is constant; man is not. The Psalms are reflections of the hearts of the persons who composed them. David in faith defeated Goliath and in folly slept with a friend's wife and had him killed. He worshiped God wholeheartedly and spared the life of his enemy King Saul, and he also was chased for years and despaired of life. One son became a wise leader, while another started a civil war. The circumstances of his life constantly changed. Each Psalm was written from a different emotional place. His worship was colored by his emotions. He felt elated over victory. He felt angry over injustice. He felt guilty over sin (like Psalm 51). The Psalms are outpourings of the heart which reveal the inner turmoils and beliefs of David and the other writers.

When the Psalmist expresses unmet expectations of God, disappointment, anger, despair, or confusion, they are being honest about what they believe, but their picture of God may be distorted or incomplete. However, notice that many Psalms show a progression. Psalm 22 begins in a dark place, but ends with an affirmation of faith that the God who is not at present showing up and remedying the situation will come in time. This shows the emotional and spiritual growth of the one who is praying and worshiping God. Their trials are increasing their faith.

This same sort of contradiction is found in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, each of which are traditionally believed to have been written, curated, or at least contributed to by Solomon. The first confidently expresses the blessings that accrue to the person that fears God, while the second expresses confusion over how often injustice and futility prevail in life, and how people who do not fear God often flourish, while the wise are forgotten.

Returning to Psalm 22:

  19 But you, Lord, do not be far from me.

  You are my strength; come quickly to help me.

  20 Deliver me from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dogs.

  21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions; save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

  22 I will declare your name to my people; in the assembly I will praise you.

  23 You who fear the Lord, praise him!

  All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!

  Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!

  24 For he has not despised or scorned
  the suffering of the afflicted one;

  he has not hidden his face from him
  but has listened to his cry for help.

Between verse 21 and verse 22, we have a transition from supplication to praise. Have the Psalmist's fortunes suddenly reversed? No, what has changed is their attitude. It is one thing to praise God for what he has done, and quite another to praise Him for what you are confident he will do. The first shows simple gratitude, while the second shows faith.

Having seen my fair share of distress in this life, I know that there are times in the midst of trouble when God feels far off, and times when he feels near. The only difference is our perception: the eyes of faith can see that God is near. The nearness of God is not in question, it is how near we will allow ourselves to be to him.

If Psalms 10, 22, 46 and 145 were indeed written by King David or by members of his court, this would be a strange contradiction. The same voice can not say on the one hand that God is ever-present (46:1) and is always ready to help those who fall (145:14), yet that God hides himself in times of trouble (10:1) and that he has forsaken me (22:1).

Mark S. Smith says in 'Taking Inspiration: Authorship, Revelation and the Book of Psalms', published in Psalms and Practice (edited by Stephen Breck Reid), page 245, the scholarly consensus is that the superscriptions, from which we assume Davidic authorship, are prose additions to the prior written poems. He cites Brevard S. Childs, to say that "the Psalms titles do not appear to reflect independent historical tradition but are the result of an exegetical activity which derived its material from within the text itself.

Smith says (ibid,page 249) Davidic authorship of these psalms is highly problematic. He says the psalms "of David"  for the most part could not have been  written by David since their grammar points to a later period (unless massive rewriting of psalm texts is assumed, an assumtion he dismisses on textual evidence). These psalms actually contain evidence that point to the time of the Babylonian Exile.

Smith says (ibid, page 261), that many psalms, such as Psalm 22, recount a lament leading to a divine answer which provokes the act of thanksgiving. Here, Psalm 22:1-18 is the lament, verses 19-21 contain a certainty that God will help, then the remainder of Psalm 22 praises God for the help that is forthcoming.  In the same way, Psalm 10:1-11 is the lament, verse 14 assures us that God is committed to the poor and the fatherless, verse 15 says what God will do, then the thanksgiving is found in verses 16-18. In contradiction to Psalm 10:1, verses 17-18 say God has heard the desire of the humble and will stop their oppression:

  Psalm 10:17-18: LORD, thou hast heard the desire of the humble: thou wilt prepare their heart, thou wilt cause thine ear to hear: To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress.

The psalms were written for liturgy and should therefore be read as liturgy.


According to churches which teach Believer's Baptism, what are the consequences of not being baptized with water? Are there any direct consequences to not getting baptized? Whether this person doesn't think it's important, or just doesn't want to, or wants to but just doesn't get around to it, did Jesus or his disciples ever give an indication that if you don't get baptized then X could happen to you or you'll never achieve X? I have some friends that are believers and love the Lord, but they just don't see baptism as an urgent thing--more of cultural thing, like baby dedications or whatnot.

I feel like a heretic for agreeing, but I honestly don't see how water baptism has any power in itself, though there's certainly power in publicly proclaiming your new faith (which my friends that forego water baptism have all done). Then again, Jesus was baptized and commanded his apostles to do so. So I am conflicted with what makes sense to me and what was practiced by the early church.

FYI: I was baptized as an adult believer, but mostly because it "felt" like the right thing to do because I was told it was the right thing to do. Now having read the bible it feels less and less important. The only answer I see again and again is "The early church did it" but I don't see any consequences for not doing it.

Edit: For the purpose of clarity, the Perspective sought is those who hold the doctrine of Believer's baptism as per Baptist and related denominations.

I agree that Baptism is an outward expression of an inward change and isn't what saves you, yet even so, it is important to be baptised for three excellent reasons:

It is a rite of initiation into the Christian community - Although our confession before God (of our faith in Christ and his Lordship over us) is of primary importance, Public confession of our faith is important in terms of our relationship to the Christian community (the church) and our witness to non-Christians.  Another common community rite that we regard as good and useful is a wedding ceremony - it isn't what makes a marriage, but it's a good way for the community to gather, recognise, and - through their witness of sacred vows - solemnize a marriage - baptism is analagous to this. A refusal to be baptised implies an unwillingness to Confess Christ before men (cf. Matthew 10:32-35, 1 Corinthians 12:12-13).
In Baptism, though it is symbolic, we identify with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.  If we are unwilling to do this through fear of man or misunderstanding, such unwillingness testifies against a genuine identifaction with Christ as our Saviour and Lord. A refusal to be baptised indicates an unwillingness to identify with Christ and his work on the cross (cf. Romans 6:3-5).
While it may not be necessary for us to receive salvation, Baptism is a command of Jesus and his Apostles (cf. Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 2:38) - to ignore this command, even if the reason seems unnecessary to us, is an act of unbelief that may be more consequential than we realise - you are effectively saying you know better than Jesus and the Apostles about how you should live as a 'Christian' - dangerous stuff!  A refusal to be baptised indicates an unwillingness to trust Jesus as Lord (cf. Romans 11:17-22, Hebrews 3&4, 2 Kings 5:1-14).

Is there any consequence for not being baptized? Jesus speaks clearly to that in John 3.

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council.
2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again. ”
4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

Emphasis mine.
UPDATE
Some of my dear friends are trying to persuade me that born of water should not be taken literally. The phrase born of water appears only this once in the whole bible. It is my understanding that if God wanted us to understand this to mean something else, the same phrase would have been used elsewhere where the context would have brought out the meaning God intended. In this case the one occurrence leaves us with just the literal meaning which fits perfectly with the rest of the bible.
Jesus showed how important baptism (or water) is when He insisted that John must baptize Him:

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized
by him. 14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I need to be
baptized by You, and are You coming to me?”
15 But Jesus answered and said to him, “Permit it to be so now, for
thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he
allowed Him.
16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the
water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He[a] saw the
Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. 17 And
suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in
whom I am well pleased.” Matthew 3:13-17

And soon after His resurrection, Jesus made it clear that baptism (of water) is important:

15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel
to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved;
but he who does not believe will be condemned. Mark 16:15,16

Paul shows the rich symbolism the baptism has in the journey of a Christian.
The act of being baptized shows that we can actually participate in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Baptism means that we have died with Christ, and have buried the old life of sin with Christ, and that we are rising to "live a new life" in Christ:

3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ
Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with
Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from
the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in
newness of life. Romans 6:3,4

Note: The gospels and Acts refer to  water baptism as the baptism of John or the baptism of repentance to differentiate it from the baptism of the Spirit/Fire:
Matthew 21:25, Mark 1:4, Mark 11:30, Luke 7:29, Luke 20:4, Acts 1:22, Acts 13:24, Acts 18:25, Acts 19:4.


Did God's curse on Cain extend to only Cain, Cain's descendants or to everyone? When God cursed Cain for killing Abel, did that curse extend to Cain's offspring, to Cain alone, or to everyone? God tells Cain:

  "And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.” Genesis 4:11-12 ESV

Later in Genesis, when tracing the genealogy of Cain's younger brother Seth, this next verse seems to indicate that the ground was cursed for everyone, not just Cain or his direct descendants?

  "When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son and called his name Noah, saying, “Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands.” Genesis 5:28-29

I think you're talking about two separate curses in your question.

The first curse, the curse on the ground, God inflicted on the entire earth because of Adam's sin:

  Genesis 3:17-19 And to Adam he said,“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

Whereas before Adam and Eve were meant to be alive forever and till the beautiful garden, now they must work the ground with sweat and toil. This is the first curse and applies to the entire earth.

The second curse is the one meant for Cain when God says that the ground will never produce food (strength) for him

  Genesis 4:10-12 And the Lord said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.”

It's important to note how God describes Cain's new forced way of life as one of a fugitive or wanderer, the Hebrew being nuwa and nuwd which both mean a kind of aimless wanderer. If the ground that he would toil would never bring forth food for him then he will be forced to wander endlessly for sustenance.

Regarding the reference to the cursed ground in Genesis 5:

  Genesis 5:28-29 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son and called his name Noah, saying, “Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands.”

It's natural to assume that Lamech is referring to first curse brought forth by Adam, not the curse that God had applied specifically to Cain.

Although we do not know for sure exactly what mark God put on Cain, but whatever it was it was readily apparent.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation.

  Genesis 4:15  And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

Cain's descendants apparently had some identifying mark on them also; since they became the ungodly line.

Genesis 4:16  through 24

  And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.  And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.  And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah. And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

The descendants of Cain, and the descendants of Seth,  lived separated up until:

Genesis 6:1  through 4

  And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.


What is the specific meaning of "die" in Genesis 2? Genesis 2:16-17 (NIV):

  16And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

KJV says:

  for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

It seems clear that Adam and Eve did not die on the day they ate from the tree. And even without the word "day" there, it seems they didn't die "when" they ate from the tree, either, but many many years later.

What gives?

The death promised and that Adam experienced the moment he chose to sin was not a ceasing to exist or a physical stopping to breathe, it was a separation: a rending apart of two things that were once closely joined. On the day that Adam ate the fruit, he died1. He was separated from God. The fellowship between them was broken.

The reverse of this death happens when we are 'born again'. The fellowship is restored, and we are born into new life -- the power of the cross is that it reverses death!

The alternative, for those who are not born again into a new life, is that they will experience a 'second death'. This is partly a contrast between physical and spiritual death. It happens sequentially after physical death (making it second) but is also the point at which spiritual separation  becomes permanent (having died once with Adam, they will be judged to permanent death). The reverse is true for believers: we will be raised into life even though we die.

This is an important doctrine to understand in light of many popular culture understandings of death as some kind of annihilation or ceasing to exist. Never in Scripture do we find an indications that any humans well cease to exist, but we do find lots of information about the change in our relationship before God.

This understanding of death as a separation or rending apart of two things once joined is also the sense of 'death' that Romans and 1st Peter use when they speak of believers being dead to sin. We are no longer bound to it as a slave is to his master. Believers relationship with sin has been severed and we have been cleaved to a new master.

When we physically die, our spirits are separated from the bodies that we have been one with2. Our bodies don't cease to exist nor do our spirits, but they part ways3. Our bodies then decay and return to dust, but even the material in this world doesn't cease to exist. Our spirits meanwhile continue, either in eternal life (unity with Christ) or eternal death (separation from Him).

  Genesis 2:17 (ESV)
  but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat1 of it you shall surely die.”

  Genesis 35:18 (ESV)
  And as her soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin.
  James 2:26 (ESV)
  For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

  Ecclesiastes 12:7 (ESV)
  and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

Die  as  described  in  Genesis 3;19:

In  the  sweat  of  thy  face  shalt  thou  eat  bread,  till  thou  return  unto  the  ground:  for  out  of  it  wast  thou  taken:  for  dust  thou  art  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  return.

Ecclesiastes 9;5

For  the  living  know  that  they  shall  die,  but  the  dead  know  not  any  thing;  neither  have  they  any  more  a  reward;  for  the  memory  of  them  is  forgotten.

Adam  and  Eve  did  not  die  physically that  day,  a   substitute  was  offered,  Jesus  Christ.

Genesis 3;21

Unto  Adam  also  and  to  his  wife  did  the  LORD  God  make  coats  of  skins,  and  clothed  them.

However,  Adam   and  Eve  did  die  spiritually,  that  day.

Isaiah  59;2

But  your  iniquities  have  seperated  between  you  and  your  God,  and  your  sins  have  hid  his  face  from  you,  that he  will  not  hear.

Later,  Adam  and  Eve  physically  died.  Eves  death  is  not  recorded.

Genesis 5;5

And  all the days  that Adam lived  were  nine  hundred  and  thirty  years:  and  he  died.

Note;  When  Adam  was  driven  out  of  the  garden,  they  no  longer  had  access  to  the  tree  of  life  that  had  sustained  them  and  immortality.  They  would  now  physically  die.  Mans  life  force  has  always  existed  outside  himself.  We  are  not  immortal  in  any  fashion.

2  Timothy  1;10    But  is  now  made  manifest  by  the  appearing  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  who  hath  abolished  death,  and  hath  brought  life  and  immorality  to  light  through  the  gospels:


What kind of food is Jesus referring to at Luke 22:16? We read at Lk 22:14-16 (NRSVCE):

"When the hour came, he took his place at the table, and the apostles with him. He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you, I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”

Jesus does eat with his disciples after the resurrection (Lk 24:42). So, it is not the mundane food that He  is referring to. As for Passover meal, one could not expect it being served  in Heaven. My question therefore, is: What kind of food is Jesus referring to in Lk 22:16 when He says that He will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God? What does the Catholic Church have to say on the subject?

St. Bede writes (as quoted in St. Thomas Aquinas's Golden Chain commentary on Luke 22, lesson 4):

  Thus then was our Lord the approver of the legal Passover; and as He taught that it related to the figure of His own dispensation, He forbids it henceforth to be represented in the flesh.* Therefore He adds, "For I say to you, I will not any more eat thereof; until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God". That is, I will no more celebrate the Mosaic Passover, until, being spiritually* understood, it is fulfilled in the Church. For the Church is the kingdom of God; as in Luke [17:21], "The kingdom of God is within you." Again, the ancient Passover, which He desired to bring to an end, is also alluded to in what follows; "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take you, &c." For this gave He thanks, that the old things were about to pass away, and all things to become new.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, sermon 151 on Luke 22:7-16:

  "But I will not eat of this Passover until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." And in this again Christ utters a profound and mysterious truth, of which He Himself, however, reveals to us the meaning. For it is His custom to give the name of "the kingdom of heaven" to justification by faith, to the cleansing that is by holy baptism and the participation of the Holy Spirit, and to the offering of spiritual service, now rendered possible by the entering in of the gospel laws. But these things are the means of our being made partakers of the promises, and of our reigning together with Christ: and therefore He says, "I will no more draw near to such a Passover as this," one namely that consisted in the typical eating,*—for a lamb of the flock was slain to be the type of the true Lamb,—"until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God:" that is, until the time has appeared in which the kingdom of heaven is preached. For this is fulfilled in us, who honor the worship that is superior to the law, even the true Passover; nor is it a lamb of the flock which sanctifies those who are in Christ, but Himself rather, being made a holy sacrifice for us, by the offering of bloodless oblations, and the mystical giving of thanks, in which we are blessed and quickened with life. For He became for us "the living bread that came down from heaven, and gives life to the world:" by Whom and with Whom to God the Father be praise and dominion, with the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen.

*Thus, it's a spiritual food.cf. Jn. 4:34: "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me"


Why would Catholics believe that being kind to one's father will bring reparation for sins? Sirach 3:12-14 tells us:

  12 My child, support your father in his old age, do not grieve him
  during his life.

  13 Even if his mind should fail, show him sympathy, do not despise him
  in your health and strength;

  14 for kindness to a father will not be forgotten but will serve as
  reparation for your sins.

From a Protestant perspective (Protestants who hold to the Apostle's Creed, for instance), verse 14 goes against everything in scripture because it teaches that you can do a good deed and it will take care of your sins. But only God can forgive sins.

But Sirach is part of the Catholic canon as inspired by God. Do Catholics believe that a Catholic in good standing can do good to one's father as noted in Sirach and have his sins forgiven, or have I misunderstood the "reparation" part of this verse?

Consider this passage from the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 25 (as usual, emphasis is mine):

  34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

  35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

  36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

  40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me.

  41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

  42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

  43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

  45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.

  46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Now, to someone who does not quite get the perspicuity of Scripture, this passage might be construed as arguing that the righteous are justified because (for, v. 35) they fed, gave drink, shelter, clothing, or visited "the least of these my brethren" (v. 40). And the others are condemned because (for, v. 42) they did not feed, give drink, shelter, clothing or visit "one of the least of these" (v. 45).

Now, Protestants clearly do not hold that this Gospel "goes against everything in Scripture". I believe the explanation is that those who do the Corporal Works of Mercy described in the Gospel are simply showing visible signs of their internal conversion, operated by faith — any Protestant brother, please correct me in the comments if that impression is mistaken.

By the same token, the passage in Ecclesiasticus (AKA Wisdom of Sirach) 3:14, when it says (re-quoting the KJV for consistency with the Gospel I quoted above):

  14 For the relieving of thy father shall not be forgotten: and instead of sins it shall be added to build thee up.

Here the Sacred Writer enjoins his readers to be kind to their parents because the kindness shown to the parents is also a Corporal Work of Mercy, which Jesus (this time the Son of God, not of Sirach) mentioned in his sermon in the Gospel, and "every tree is known by his own fruit; for of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes" (Lk 6:44). And a man who cannot respect his own father and mother will certainly not respect a complete stranger, nor the Father who is in heaven.

Furthermore, the Catechism says of the duties of children, in the section commenting on the Fourth Commandment (honour father and mother):

  2215 Respect for parents (filial piety) derives from gratitude toward those who, by the gift of life, their love and their work, have brought their children into the world and enabled them to grow in stature, wisdom, and grace. "With all your heart honor your father, and do not forget the birth pangs of your mother. Remember that through your parents you were born; what can you give back to them that equals their gift to you?"Sir 7:27–28

  2216 Filial respect is shown by true docility and obedience. "My son, keep your father's commandment, and forsake not your mother's teaching.... When you walk, they will lead you; when you lie down, they will watch over you; and when you awake, they will talk with you."Prov 6:20–22 "A wise son hears his father's instruction, but a scoffer does not listen to rebuke."Prov 13:1

  2218 The fourth commandment reminds grown children of their responsibilities toward their parents. As much as they can, they must give them material and moral support in old age and in times of illness, loneliness, or distress. Jesus recalls this duty of gratitude.Cf. Mk 7:10–12

    For the Lord honored the father above the children, and he confirmed the right of the mother over her sons. Whoever honors his father atones for sins, and whoever glorifies his mother is like one who lays up treasure. Whoever honors his father will be gladdened by his own children, and when he prays he will be heard. Whoever glorifies his father will have long life, and whoever obeys the Lord will refresh his mother.Sir 3:2–6

    O son, help your father in his old age, and do not grieve him as long as he lives; even if he is lacking in understanding, show forbearance; in all your strength do not despise him.... Whoever forsakes his father is like a blasphemer, and whoever angers his mother is cursed by the Lord.Sir 3:12–13.16

  2220 For Christians a special gratitude is due to those from whom they have received the gift of faith, the grace of Baptism, and life in the Church. These may include parents, grandparents, other members of the family, pastors, catechists, and other teachers or friends. "I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you."2 Tim 1:15

In conclusion, Catholics dispute that the passage in Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 3 is "against everything in Scripture", because there is plenty in Scripture (not just the Deuterocanonical books) where "justification by works" can be read into the text, like the Gospel passage first mentioned in this answer.

The Catholic Haydock Commentary on those verses says:

Ver. 12. Thee. Boast not of thy superior talents, nor say any thing disrespectful.
Ver. 13. A father. Greek, "mother." Alexander [the Great] was ashamed of having Philip for his father, pretending that he was the son of Jupiter Ammon. His mother Olympias, with much ingenuity, wrote to him, that he would thus make Juno her powerful rival!
Ver. 15. Fail. Bis pueri senes. They do not lose the character of fathers, how infirm soever, (Calmet) and those can never truly serve the invisible Deity, who despise their fathers, his visible images on the earth. (Philo; Decal.)


Do most Christian scientists have a Literal Creationist viewpoint? I have been thinking a lot about creation lately, and I am just curious as to whether most scientists believe the literal account or if they believe in some form of theistic evolution.

I can't find any more specific polling, but from this ongoing Gallop Poll:

Only 40% of all Americans believe in a strict Young Earth Creation model (be that Genesis or otherwise) - the majority support some form of theistic evolution or natural evolution.

When you look at those with post-graduate education, nearly 50% hold a theistic evolution view, with 25% supporting a naturalistic evolution view and only 22% supporting a young earth model.

If we take "scientists" to mean those with a post-graduate degree involved in the active study of some natural science, then it would a reasonable (though quite unscientific) assumption to say that the majority of scientists their post-graduate peers and support the evolutionary model, either from a theistic standpoint or a naturalistic one.

This obviously isn't firm evidence either way - there is some evidence that those in the natural sciences have higher rates of religious belief than those in more social sciences, but not to any extreme degree, and it would be a stretch to claim that scientists reject evolution at a higher rate than the general populace.

It's also only looking at American data, but outside of Islamic countries, you're only going to see more support for evolution.

Most believe in evolution. They believe that, yes, God literally created the Universe- via the Big Bang.
For many years, atheists maintained that the Universe had NO beginning. The Big Bang theory more or less disproved this. HOW ON EARTH such groundbreaking support became a banner for atheists to rally under as 'their thing' (along with evolution)- I have no idea!

I should add that I ASSUME most Christian scientist don't take the 'seven days thing' literally as Creationists are a very small minority. I don't actually have the figures in front of me but I would be astounded beyond belief if it turned out otherwise...


Why couldn't Adam and Eve keep both commandments? I hope this question is unique here, but I assure you I have searched and have not yet seen it. (This question is close, but not quite the same.)

Adam and Eve were given two commandments: 1) Multiply and replenish the earth, and 2) not eat of the forbidden fruit. From what I understand, some Christian denominations believe the commandments to be paradoxical; one cannot be kept without breaking the other.

Within the scope of those Christian denominations which view the two commandments as both impossible to keep while in the Garden of Eden: Why couldn't they keep both of these commandments, for surely they would have if they could?

...some Christian denominations believe the commandments to be paradoxical; one cannot be kept without breaking the other.

The short answer
There is no Biblical support for this.

The long answer
If some Christian denominations believe this, is it extra-biblical, e.g. Mormons, and so explanation will likely vary widely. (Actually, AFAIK, Mormonism is the only denomination that believes this.)
Perhaps you consider this the justification:

Why couldn't they keep both of these commandments, for surely they would have if they could?

But that is not necessarily true. Man was not infallable, and remember: the devil played a hand here too. It's not really temptation unless you can make the wrong choice.

FYI, Greg Bala said:

This question basically boils down to these types of questions:

Why did (how could) God create a creature that could choose poorly?

Did God know what we will fail?

Why didn't God create us without what is necessary to choose well?

While I do not believe these questions are what you are asking, these are the more commonly asked paradoxes/concerns about Adam and Eve.

We receive God's grace (His unmerited love) by faith.  Faith in love was what was transgressed in the Garden.  Eve was deceived, Adam's loyalty was misguided, but in both cases it was not primarily a question of obedience, but of misplaced faith.  Eve trusted the words of the serpent rather than the Word of God.  Adam trusted in the words of Eve rather than trusting in the Word of God.

In contrast Jesus always places His faith in the will of the Father: John 5:19 The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.  Jesus does not personally discern between good and evil, but rather does only what He sees His Father do.

Independence from God (death) is man discerning between (good and evil), as apposed to man faithfully trusting in the will of God.

Man gains access to God by placing faith in God's loving grace.


What is the purpose of godparents? I was looking through Catholic baptismal records, while doing genealogy, when I realized that I didn't know what the purpose of godparents is. What is their purpose? Why are they recorded? Are the godparents held accountable for anything?

A good explanatation is given in "The Role of Godparents" by Fr. William Saunders

As per Code of Canon Law 872 - 874 the rules are as below:

  Can.872  Insofar as possible, a person to be baptized is to be given a
  sponsor who assists an adult in Christian initiation or together with
  the parents presents an infant for baptism. A sponsor also helps the
  baptized person to lead a Christian life in keeping with baptism and
  to fulfill faithfully the obligations inherent in it.

  Can.873  There is to be only one male sponsor or one female sponsor or one of each.

  Can.874  §1. To be permitted to take on the function of sponsor a
  person must:

  Be designated by the one to be baptized, by the parents or the person who takes their place, or in their absence by the pastor or
  minister and have the aptitude and intention of fulfilling this
  function;
  Have completed the sixteenth year of age, unless the diocesan bishop has established another age, or the pastor or minister has
  granted an exception for a just cause;
  Be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has already received the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life of faith in
  keeping with the function to be taken on;
  Not be bound by any canonical penalty legitimately imposed or declared;
  Not be the father or mother of the one to be baptized.

So the primary purpose is to take care of the Catholic faith formation, and it does not hold them accountable to taking care of the child in the future.

In times of old, it was not uncommon for the parents of a child to die, leaving no relatives behind.  In such a case, who would get the child? Perhaps the church, if parents where part of it, or the child would be on its own. Thus, I think god parenting came out of need for the child. It is called compassion.


According to Catholicism, what is an imprimatur? What is the scope of an imprimatur? What does a work having an imprimatur mean for that work? What does it mean for the body of doctrine itself?

Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat

"Imprimatur" is Latin for "let it be printed."  An imprimatur is a bishop's permission to print a religious book.  The bishop is always the local ordinary of the author who wrote the book.  The Catholic Code of Canon Law, canons 822-4, requires pastors to help guide the faithful in their use of social communication and particularly books.  The imprimatur is one way that charge is carried out.

An imprimatur is always preceded by a "nihil obstat," which is Latin for "nothing stands in the way."  This is the judgment that the religious book contains no significant doctrinal errors.  Both the imprimatur and the nihil obstat are negative judgments insofar as they are not meant to positively approve the contents of the book, but are merely meant to say that it is not disapproved.  It sometimes happens that imprimaturs or nihil obstats are revoked after a period of time due to a discovery of doctrinal errors in the work.

Answering Specific Questions

"What is the scope of an imprimatur?

The scope covers the entire book as published, but not new versions of the same book.  It is a practice which is only carried out for religious texts because it is a judgment about how the book comports with the doctrines of the Catholic Church, doctrines which involve faith and morals.  It is a negative assessment insofar as it is not meant to approve the book or any proposition in the book.  It is not an endorsement (see above).

"What does a work having an imprimatur mean for that work?"

It means that the local bishop believes the work is fit to print.  See above for more detail.

"What does it mean for the body of doctrine itself?"

As far as the deposit of faith of the Church is concerned, it means very little.  Per canons 822-3, it is a service to the faithful, not a means of developing or promulgating doctrine.  Although it is a judgment about the presence of errors in a work, imprimaturs and nihil obstats can be revoked, as noted above.  It is also a diocesan-based initiative in the sense that each diocese has a bishop and at least one censor (a theologian approved to render a nihil obstat), so the opinion represents the decision of a single diocese rather than the whole Church.

Newman on St. Alphonsus Liguori

St. John Henry Newman writes about the beatification process of St. Alphonsus Liguori, part of which was an examination of Liguori's writings in a way that would be very similar to the examination carried out by those authorized to give the imprimatur or nihil obstat.  Although this process is more precise, thorough, and authoritative than an imprimatur or nihil obstat, I believe it may help shed some light on your question at a deeper level.  Please forgive the length:

  It is supposed by Protestants that, because St. Alfonso's writings have had such high commendation bestowed upon them by authority, therefore they have been invested with a quasi-infallibility. This has arisen in good measure from Protestants not knowing the force of theological terms. The words to which they refer are the authoritative decision that "nothing in his works has been found worthy of censure," "censurâ dignum;" but this does not lead to the conclusions which have been drawn from it. Those words occur in a legal document, and cannot be interpreted except in a legal sense. In the first place, the sentence is negative; nothing in St. Alfonso's writings is positively approved; and secondly it is not said that there are no faults in what he has written, but nothing which comes under the ecclesiastical censura, which is something very definite. To take and interpret them, in the way commonly adopted in England, is the same mistake, as if one were to take the word "apologia" in the English sense of apology, or "infant" in law to mean a little child.

  Now first as to the meaning of the form of words viewed as a proposition. When they were brought before the fitting authorities at
  Rome by the Archbishop of Besançon, the answer returned to him
  contained the condition that those words were to be interpreted, "with
  due regard to the mind of the Holy See concerning the approbation of
  writings of the servants of God, ad effectum Canonisationis." This is
  intended to prevent any Catholic taking the words about St. Alfonso's
  works in too large a sense. Before a saint is canonised, his works are
  examined and a judgment pronounced upon them. Pope Benedict XIV. says,
  "The end or scope of this judgment is, that it may appear, whether the
  doctrine of the servant of God, which he has brought out in his
  writings, is free from any soever theological censure." And he remarks
  in addition, "It never can be said that the doctrine of a servant of
  God is approved by the Holy See, but at most it can [only] be said
  that it is not disapproved (non reprobatam) in case that the revisers
  had reported that there is nothing found by them in his works, which
  is adverse to the decrees of Urban VIII., and that the judgment of the
  Revisers has been approved by the sacred Congregation, and confirmed
  by the Supreme Pontiff." The Decree of Urban VIII. here referred to
  is, "Let works be examined, whether they contain errors against faith
  or good morals (bonos mores), or any new doctrine, or a doctrine
  foreign and alien to the common sense and custom of the Church." The
  author from whom I quote this (M. Vandenbroeck, of the diocese of
  Malines) observes, "It is therefore clear, that the approbation of the
  works of the Holy Bishop touches not the truth of every proposition,
  adds nothing to them, nor even gives them by consequence a degree of
  intrinsic probability." He adds that it gives St. Alfonso's theology
  an extrinsic probability, from the fact that, in the judgment of the
  Holy See, no proposition deserves to receive a censure; but that "that
  probability will cease nevertheless in a particular case, for any one
  who should be convinced, whether by evident arguments, or by a decree
  of the Holy See, or otherwise, that the doctrine of the Saint deviates
  from the truth." He adds, "From the fact that the approbation of the
  works of St. Alfonso does not decide the truth of each proposition, it
  follows, as Benedict XIV. has remarked, that we may combat the
  doctrine which they contain; only, since a canonised saint is in
  question, who is honoured by a solemn culte in the Church, we ought
  not to speak except with respect, nor to attack his opinions except
  with temper and modesty."
  Then, as to the meaning of the word censura: Benedict XIV. enumerates a number of "Notes" which come under that name; he says,
  "Out of propositions which are to be noted with theological censure,
  some are heretical, some erroneous, some close upon error, some
  savouring of heresy," and so on; and each of these terms has its own
  definite meaning. Thus by "erroneous" is meant, according to Viva, a
  proposition which is not immediately opposed to a revealed
  proposition, but only to a theological conclusion drawn from premisses
  which are de fide; "savouring of heresy," when a proposition is
  opposed to a theological conclusion not evidently drawn from premisses
  which are de fide, but most probably and according to the common mode
  of theologising, and so with the rest. Therefore when it was said by
  the revisers of St. Alfonso's works that they were not "worthy of
  censure," it was only meant that they did not fall under these
  particular Notes.

  But the answer from Rome to the Archbishop of Besançon went further
  than this; it actually took pains to declare that any one who pleased
  might follow other theologians instead of St. Alfonso. After saying
  that no priest was to be interfered with who followed St. Alfonso in
  the Confessional, it added, "This is said, however, without on that
  account judging that they are reprehended who follow opinions handed
  down by other approved authors."

  And this too, I will observe, that St. Alfonso made many changes of
  opinion himself in the course of his writings; and it could not for an
  instant be supposed that we were bound to every one of his opinions,
  when he did not feel himself bound to them in his own person. And,
  what is more to the purpose still, there are opinions, or some
  opinion, of his which actually has been proscribed by the Church
  since, and cannot now be put forward or used. I do not pretend to be a
  well-read theologian myself, but I say this on the authority of a
  theological professor of Breda, quoted in the Mélanges Théol. for
  1850-1. He says: "It may happen, that, in the course of time, errors
  may be found in the works of St. Alfonso and be proscribed by the
  Church, a thing which in fact has already occurred."

Sources

Wikipedia - Imprimatur
Wikipedia - Nihil Obstat
"What are Imprimi Potest, Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat?" by Fr. Bartunek
Apologia pro Vita Sua, by John Henry Newman (Section 8 of the appendix)
Code of Canon Law, Canons 822-4

According to Catholicism, what is an imprimatur?

  IMPRIMATUR (Pronounced im-prim-AH-tur – Latin for “let it be printed.”)

  Imprimatur is an official approval from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church stating that a literary or similar work is totally free from error in all matters of faith and doctrine, and hence is acceptable reading for faithful Catholics. Approval is also sometimes indicated by the words Nihil Obstat which mean “nothing hinders”: there is no obstacle to publication. An imprimatur is not given lightly; it follows a thorough review process. It is usually printed on a page at or near the beginning of the work. The name and title of the official church censor or other ecclesiastical authority, and the date that permission was granted, always accompany either declaration. - Papal Blessing

Below is an example of an approved imprimatur issued by a Cardinal. - Imprimatur Echeverria

What is the scope of an imprimatur? What does a work having an imprimatur mean for that work? What does it mean for the body of doctrine itself?

This series of question are tied-up and can only be understood if one or a faithful can understand the role of Bishop and where does his authority to govern, censure and approval comes from.

From Catechsim of the Catholic Church we can see that a Bishop is a successor of the Apostles of Christ, it follows that a Bishop authority originated also from Christ as Apostles successor.

  77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

We can also see from the gospel, that Christ anticipating that when he leave, the Apostle must be guided in preaching the Truth and so Jesus Christ promised them that He will sent the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Truth to guide them in all Truth. The promised was given to all the Apostles united to Peter as Jesus gave only to Peter the power to bind & loose. No Bishop can bind any doctrines or teachings apart from the Vicar of Christ.

  85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

A Bishop who is in Full Communion with Rome is an assurance that his judgment on giving an "imprimatur" is guided by the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Truth to protect the Church from teaching and spreading error in matters of faith and morals.

  92 "The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals."55

Now, from the previous thread in CSE citing an "imprimatur" was revoked, see this link According to Catholicism, can an imprimatur be revoked?, not only once but thrice citing a wikipedia source. Does it mean, that the Church thru it's Bishop had spread and allowed an error in faith to be published that can harm the faithful?
It's good to examine and analyze first where does the error originates, why? Because if the Bishop who approved the "imprimatur" is a pious Bishop and known to be loyal or in full communion with Rome or Church Magisterium, how can his judgement failed if the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Truth was promised to the Church by Christ?

  The Work of the Holy Spirit
  26 “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning. (John15:26-27)

  16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth.

If in the course of examination, the Bishop who gave the imprimatur had committed an error in judgment and did not see the doctrinal errors contain in the propose book, then, can we say that the Holy Spirit had failed to guide the Bishop being a member of the Church? This is where a good discernment must take place and a better judgment, that's why there is a Church Hierarchy established by Christ. The Church Magisterium headed by the Pope can rescue and help the Bishop correct the error in his judgement.

  93 "By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium),. . . receives. . . the faith, once for all delivered to the saints. . . The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life."56

Therefore, the Dogma of Chruch indefectibility lies in the unity of the Church in handing and teaching the faithful. All the Bishops must be in full communion with Pope's Magisterium to prevent and protect the Church from spreading and teachings errors in doctrines in matters of faith and morals.

  95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."62

To give one good example of a Church Magisterium disagreement with the Pope, is the issue between Cardinal Muller the former Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith and Pope Francis inspired teachings titled "Amoris laetetia". Cardinal Muller upheld the Doctrine of the Justice of God, while Pope Francis was clear in his conviction as Supreme Pontiff that the Holy Spirit inspired him to upheld the "Infinite Mercy of God". Now, whose judgment must prevail, Cardinal Muller the Prefect of CDF or Pope Francis the Supreme Pontiff the supreme interpreter, legislator and guarantor of faith?
The answer is, Pope Francis inspired teachings must prevail, and we can see that their disagreement perhaps is the reason why Cardinal Muller was removed from his post as his views runs contrary not only to the Vicar of Christ but also from the scriptures who upheld the primacy of mercy over justice.

  James 2:13 English Standard Version (ESV)
  13 For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

The Church Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit was assured by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, the Church Magisterium headed by the Pope cannot err in matters of faith and morals. If there is a Bishop and Cardinal who are oppose to the inspired teachings of the Pope then that Bishop or Cardinals can be the source of error & disunity to the Church.
Likewise, we relate that an "imprimatur" issued or approved by a Bishop not in full communion with the Holy See can be subject to error in judgment as the Holy Spirit cannot be found in disunity and pride by not fully submitting to the Divine Authority of the Church Magisterium established by Christ Himself.
That's why a Bishop who are known to oppose or resist the Church Magisterium who had issued & approved an imprimatur must be review immediately by the Church Authority.


Scriptural basis for replacement theology? There exist groups who believe that Christians or believers of Jesus completely replaced Jews as Israel and as the chosen people, and that Jews no longer have a valid relationship with G-d, unless they become Christians.

Is such a theology prevalent within Christianity? What is the scriptural basis both for and against it?

You kind of tipped your hand by using the word ideology in your question! An unscriptural ideology is at the heart of a deficient theology regarding Israel and the Christian Church. (By Church, with a capital C, I'm referring to the universal or "holy catholic" church, which is composed of all true believers in Jesus Christ.)
There Is No Legitimate Argument For It!
The key biblical passage in this regard would have to be Romans, chapters 9-11, where Paul attempts to counteract an incorrect ideology with a correct theology. By the way, if you entertain any thoughts about Paul having slipped into ideology instead of theology, read 9:3-5.

"For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen" (Italicized words are original to the NASB Updated version).

What Paul is saying, in part, is there would be no Christianity without Judaism. According to Paul, Judaism is the very foundation of Christianity. Most significant, of course, is that Jesus was born a Jew!
Most Evangelical Christians I know do not subscribe to the notion that Israel is washed up, or that God has given up on Israel and subsequently turned to the church as his only light of truth in a dark world. They focus, rather, on the very expressions Paul uses to indicate the temporary nature of Israel being put on hold, so to speak. Paul uses such expressions as

". . . it is not as though the word of God has failed" (9:6)

In other words, the word of God may not have had the effect God desired, but that is not to say it will never achieve God's desired outcome.

". . . the children of promise are regarded as descendants" (9:8; notice the tense of the verb I've italicized: present--not past--tense).

Put differently, descent from Abraham, the father of faith and a nation, will on day--once more--be an advantage to those descendants who believe God.
Let's stop here. In Paul's line of reasoning, what God was doing among Israel is simply being continued today through the church until the promises God made to Abraham and Isaac, "the child of promise," are fulfilled completely.
The Christian Church as Parenthetical
Think of the "church age" as parenthetical. Not in the sense that what is inside the parentheses is unimportant or an afterthought. No, but in the sense that what came before the parentheses is going to be continued after the parentheses. Other expressions Paul uses are also of relevance:

". . . but Israel , pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law . . .. Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone" (and then Paul quotes Isaiah 8:14). Note: the italicized words are in the the NASB Updated version.

Put differently, Israel stumbled at the simplicity of simply believing in the promise of God; namely, that he was going to bless the entire earth through Abraham's seed (and Isaac's seed, and King David's seed, and so on). Israel got caught up in the rigid observance of the Law as their way of earning God's favor with works of righteousness and stumbled at the sufficiency of faith to win God's favor, which is at the heart of the biblical notion of grace (viz., God's undeserved, unmerited favor to sinners, whether Jew or Gentile).

". . . there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for 'WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED'" (10:12-13).

Another key verse is the following:

". . . God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I . . . [Paul] am an Israelite . . ." (11:1 NASB Updated).
"In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice" (ibid., v.5, original italics)
"But by their [Israel's] transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make . . . [Israel] jealous. Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!" (ibid., v.12, original italics).

In other words, a time of fulfillment is coming for Israel. Again, that fulfillment comes after the parentheses of the church age.
Israel Is the Cultivated Stock; the Gentiles, A Wild Branch Grafted In
Paul also resorts to metaphor in chapter 11, talking of bread dough, trees, and branches. The Jews are the original tree root of the cultivated olive, whereas the Gentiles are the "wild" branches which were grafted into the tree when the original branches were "broken off" (vv.16-17). He then warns the Gentiles not to become arrogant. After all, the Jews came first. Just because some of their branches were broken off doesn't mean the original root can't or won't come back to life and produce more branches from the original root!
Moreover, God can just as easily break off the grafted-in branches (i.e., the Gentiles) for unbelief when they fail to lay hold of God's kindness while it is still offered to them (see vv.18-24).
A Partial and Temporary Hardening
Finally, Paul wraps up his argument by saying,

". . . a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel shall be saved, just as it is written [in Isaiah 59:20]."

Furthermore,

". . . the gifts and the calling of God [to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and so on] are irrevocable. . . .For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all" [both Gentile and Jew] (v.32).

In conclusion, God has not replaced Israel with the Christian church; rather, the Christian church was grafted in as a way of continuing what God had been doing all along with Israel (viz., seeking a people for himself who would latch on to his promises and thereby be declared righteous by God through simple faith, just as Abraham's faith was accounted unto him as righteousness (Romans 4:3 and 9), since "the just shall live by faith."

Salvation was never based on Jewishness. Israel is the only "nationally elected" nation. Salvation is by "individual election." There is no reasonable grounds to make the church a replacement of Israel. There is however strong literal evidence that the national election of Israel must still be in effect because of the everlasting covenant between Abraham and God.

If all of the first coming promises to Israel were literally fulfilled then all of His second coming prophecies should be expected to be fulfilled. Yeshua (Jesus) will return to Israel only when Israel asks Him to. Hosea 5:19


What does Romans 11:32 mean? For God has imprisoned everyone in disobedience so he could have mercy on everyone. NLT

Does this scripture mean that God made everyone disobedient just to have mercy on us?

I do not believe so. In fact, the NKJV version tells it a little differently and doing so it lines up with more scripture.

  32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have
  mercy on all. -Romans 11:32 NKJV

God doesn't "make" us be disobedient but rather he brings to light our disobedience so we can repent.

  4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is
  the Lord who judges me. 5Therefore judge nothing before the appointed
  time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden
  in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time
  each will receive their praise from God. -1 Corinthians 4:4-5

  There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that
  will not be made known. 3What you have said in the dark will be heard
  in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner
  rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs.
  "4'I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body
  and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should
  fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to
  throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. 6Are not five sparrows
  sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God.
  7Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be
  afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.'"- Luke 12:2-7

The point it is making is that according to God we are all disobedient and therefore we all need mercy and grace. He provided that grace through the finished work of Jesus on the cross.

Does the scripture mean God made us disobedient just to have mercy on us?  No. God does not make us disobedient. Man, with the help of the enemy, chooses to be disobedient

Romans Chapter 11 is about the struggles of the Jews and the Gentiles in accepting the gospel.  There was a remnant of the Jews that accepted the gospel, Romans 11;7.

Romans  11;17,20,21

And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partaketh of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

The olive tree is Israel, the wild olive tree is the Gentiles.

20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded but fear; 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

Romans 11;32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

No one in un belief is excluded, all, by the mercy of God may obtain salvation.