Did 17th century Reformed Christians reject textual criticism? The Westminster Confession says the following:

  WCF 1.8: The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;

Robert Estienne's Editio Regia, the first edition of the Greek New Testament with a critical apparatus, had been published almost a century before the Westminster Assembly. By that time it would have been well known across Europe that there were substantial variants in Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.

What did the Westminster divines (ie, theologians attending the assembly) mean by saying that the New Testament has been "kept pure" by God? Does this phrase express a rejection of the task of textual criticism? If so, what was the text that they considered to have been "kept pure", and what did they make of all the variants?

Chapter 1 Section VIII of the Westminster Confession states that it is both the Hebrew (O.T.) and the Greek (N.T.) texts in their original languages that the Westminster Divines said were “immediately inspired of God”, being authentic and “kept pure in all ages by God’s singular care and providence.”  Christians were to translate them “into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they came”. However, there is a need to give a historical time-line, for clarity of thought about textual criticism, after which we may return to what the Westminster Divines meant in Section VIII.

You have already mentioned the role of Robert Estienne, who (in 1550) made marginal notes from various Greek manuscripts of the N.T., and some readings from the Complutensian Polyglot. The Wikipedia link is useful for such details, and it notes that “The third edition became for many scholars, especially in England, the normative text of the Greek New Testament. It maintained this position until 1880.”

The Westminster divines met from 1643 to 1648, which was shortly before the development of what later became known as “The Enlightenment” period which, in turn, gave rise to Deism.  It became

  “a view of religious knowledge that placed common principles of human
  reason and common religious ideas of humanity at the center and judged
  all claims to special revelation by them. The Deists thought this new,
  rational approach to religion most consistent with the basic impulses
  both of Protestantism and the new philosophy and science of the
  Enlightenment…
  Deism was an effort to demonstrate Christianity to be
  the highest and best expression of a purely natural religion of
  reason… Once blasphemy laws were no longer enforced in England and
  North America, most Deists openly denied such doctrines [as the deity
  of Jesus Christ and the Trinity]…
  At the most basic level, then,
  Deism’s distinctive nature among Protestant movements in theology had
  to do with its view of religious authority.  All the other Protestant
  theologies were theologies of Word and Spirit.  Luther, Calvin,
  Zwingli, Cranmer, Hooker and the Anabaptists all emphasized the
  dialectic of Word and Spirit as the true Christian authority for faith
  and practice.  The Word of God, especially as expressed in Holy
  Scripture, was seen as the objective, infallible special revelation of
  God delivered through the agency of the Holy Spirit by a supernatural
  operation known as inspiration.  But the Word without the Spirit
  illuminating it to readers’ minds and hearts would remain a ‘dead
  letter,’ and so the Holy Spirit is also crucial to Christian
  authority.  All the major first-generation Protestant Reformers agreed
  that the Holy Spirit does not deliver new doctrinal truths after the
  completion of Scripture but does illumine it to readers of faith and
  impress its truth on them through the testimonium internum Spiritus
  Sancti – “the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.” 1

The Westminster Divines were 2nd generation Reformers, heirs to that original stance on the vital role of how the Holy Spirit preserved the authority and meaning of the original manuscripts of the entire Bible, though the original ‘Autographs’ from the 1st century were long lost.  Although John Wesley upheld the authority of Scripture, by the late 1700s

  “many of his more liberal heirs had developed the ‘Wesleyan
  Quadrilateral,’ treating reason, tradition, and experience as sources
  of revelation alongside Scripture.” 2

By the early 1800s, that, the Enlightenment, and Deism gave rise to “Textual Criticism” which sought to look at ancient Greek texts from a purely academic point of view. New Greek manuscripts had been discovered and, by the 1880s, they had been considered superior to some that the Reformers used. A new pedigree of Greek biblical texts were then promoted, which form the basis of all modern translations of the N.T.

To show that the Westminster Divines would have had no truck with such later developments, here is another quote:

  “Reformation theology applies the magisterial-ministerial distinction
  when it speaks about the authority of the Word over the subordinate
  authority of the church, reason, tradition, and experience. The church
  has received a legitimate authority from Christ to reach consensual
  interpretations of God’s Word through its representative assemblies
  (as in the councils that led to the formation of the ecumenical creeds
  as well as the confessions, catechisms, and church orders of
  particular bodies).  Nevertheless, this authority is always relative
  to and dependent upon the sovereign (magisterial) authority of God’s
  revealed word.  Like the church, reason and experience and culture are
  servants through which we apprehend God’s Word, but we are never
  masters of it.” 3

Because Textual Criticism of the 1800s divorced the role of the Holy Spirit from the integrity of biblical manuscript copies and placed human reason and experience as the touchstone of authenticity, we can be sure that, had those variant manuscripts discovered in the 1800s been found in the era of the Westminster Divines, they would never have considered them the way scholars of the 1800s did. The Westminster Divines did, however, appreciate and use the work of Robert Estienne, for he did major spade-work in the early stages of getting back to the Greek text, instead of the Latin text of his day. The Reformers knew the worth of translating from the Greek text for the N.T.  As the Wiki link states:

  “Editio Regia (Royal edition) is the third and the most important
  edition of the Greek New Testament of Robert Estienne (1503-1559). It
  is one of the most important printed editions of the Greek New
  Testament in history, the Textus Receptus.”

That is the pedigree of texts used by the Reformers, the Westminster Divines, and right up until the 1880s when modern Textual Criticism broke with the principles of evaluating the Scriptures that they held so dear, resulting in a new pedigree of texts.

In conclusion, here is what a commentary on the Westminster Confession, ch. 1 section VIII states as to how they viewed the role of the Holy Spirit in ensuring the integrity of copies of the Autographs:

  “We do not now possess the document so inspired of God as to be
  perfect in every way.  Making use of this fact, Modernists (who
  disbelieve the original perfection of the text of scripture) have long
  argued that Reformed Christians have no infallible Bible to which they
  may appeal…
  This brings us to the matter of God’s ‘singular care and
  providence’ by which He has ‘kept pure in all ages’ this original
  text, so that we now actually possess it in ‘authentical’ form.  And
  let us begin by giving an illustration from modern life to show that
  an original document may be destroyed, without the text of that
  document being lost.  Suppose you were to write a will.  Then suppose
  you were to have a photographic copy of that will made.  If the
  original were then destroyed, the photographic copy would still
  preserve the text of that will exactly the same as the original
  itself.  The text of the copy would differ in no way whatever from the
  original, and so it would possess exactly the same ‘truth’ and meaning
  as the original.  Now of course photography was not invented until
  long after the original copy had been worn out or lost.  How then
  could the original text of the Word of God be preserved?  The answer
  is that God preserved it by His own remarkable care and providence…
  Remember, too, that in a day when there were no printing presses and
  only a few precious copies of the Bible, the people had to memorize
  much more than we do today.  Thus it was that especially in the
  Greek-speaking Church, from the very beginning, the Greek New
  Testament had living witnesses who helped reduce the errors of copiers
  to an exceedingly small amount.  Then, when the Reformation came, God
  in His providence had enabled mankind to discover mechanical means of
  printing.  Because of this, the text of Scripture could be reproduced
  in thousands of copies without progressive deterioration in accuracy.
    …(We may point out in closing our discussion of this section that God
  has similarly preserved the text of the Old Testament – through
  manuscript witnesses, and through the careful oversight of
  Hebrew-speaking Jews, who by their familiarity with the text of the
  Old Testament in their own language, quickly detected accidental
  errors in copy-work.)” 4

1  The Story of Christian Theology pp 520-1, Roger E. Olson (Apollos 1999)
2  Pilgrim Theology p69, Michael Horton (Zondervan 2011)
3  Ibid. p68
4  The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes pp15-17, G.I. Williamson (Presbyterian &
    Reformed Publishing Co, 1964)
Link to the Westminster Confession chapter on Holy Scripture: :  https://www.presbyterian.org.au/index.php/index-for-wcf/chapter-1-holy-scripture
Link to information on Robert Estienne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editio_Regia


What is the significance of the three different gifts (gold, frankincense and myrrh) given to Jesus by the Magi after his birth? In Matthew 2:11, we read that the Magi or wise men brought gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.  Were these common gifts to be given at that time or did each of them hold significant meaning, perhaps unknown to the wise men themselves but part of God's sovereign plan?

  And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and
  they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they
  offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.  (Matthew 2:11, ESV)

We Three Kings

The verses to 'we three kings' are pretty wonderfully theological and wrap across most doctrines.

The gifts symbolize aspects of Jesus' ministry and purpose.

  Born a King on Bethlehem's plain
  Gold I bring to crown Him again
  King forever, ceasing never
  Over us all to rein

Gold is the gift to honor a King.  It is offered in acknowledgement that Jesus is the King of His Kingdom. Prince of Peace, etc...

  Frankincense to offer have I
  Incense owns a Deity nigh
  Pray'r and praising, all men raising
  Worship Him, God most high

Frankincense is the incense burned in religious ceremonies.  It is an offering to honor Jesus as God.

  Myrrh is mine, its bitter perfume
  Breathes of life of gathering gloom
  Sorrowing, sighing, bleeding, dying
  Sealed in the stone-cold tomb

Myrrh is the oil that is used to anoint a dead body before burial.  It is offered as a prophecy of the way he would die.

Prefiguring the New Covenant

There may also be some symbolism in the three offerings in terms of Jesus as Priest, Prophet and King.  Hebrews 9 says that inside the Ark of the Covenant was held a gold jar of Manna from Heaven, the Rod of Aaron which sprouted and the 10 Commandments.

These are also types for Jesus. Manna for Jesus as the Great Prophet, the rod for Jesus as the Eternal High Priest and the ten commandments for Jesus as the Lawgiver or King. And the Gifts reflect those items stored in the Ark.  Gold for kingship, Frankincense for priesthood and Myrrh for prophecy.

They're offered to Jesus, but it is Mary, who accepts them as the Ark of the New Covenant.

Alas, I just read this in the Catholic Encyclopedia

  The giving of gifts was in keeping with Oriental custom. The purpose of the gold is clear; the Child was poor. We do not know the purpose of the other gifts. The Magi probably meant no symbolism. The Fathers have found manifold and multiform symbolic meanings in the three gifts; it is not clear that any of these meanings are inspired

Apparently there is no inspired and obvious symbolism.


What is the process for remarried couples to convert to Catholicism? I was reading and trying to understand Amoris Laetitia
  and came up with this question below.

The documents talk about irregular couples and basically say that everyone undergoes different timing of conversion.

This is a situation:
A non-practicing Catholic couple "divorces" and re-marry by state. They end up having families, let's say with 3 or more kids with another husband/wife. According to the Catholic teaching, they live in adultery. Now, they start to be interested in spiritual life and undergo what we call a conversion. But they are stuck because they can't just split and leave their kids or whatever dependencies they have.

I know the ideal would be to get an annulment and solve this problem. But let's say they aren't entitled to an annulment.
My question is what does the church offer to such couples as a solution?
Suggesting to live like a brother and sister isn't going to work unless they stop living in the same household but that might not be ideal for kids (I guess) or it can still cause a scandal.

Is splitting couples really the only way to go if they want to live a sacramental life? I know this happened to St. Augustine but his situation wasn't that complicated. Do we have other examples from the past where families needed to separate in order to return back to living in the state of grace?

Have Catholic theologians written on this subject and if so could someone explain it to me?

G.K. Chesterton discusses the logical absurdity of pretending to "cancel" a life long vow with a piece of paper from a government in "The Superstition of Divorce".  I highly recommend reading or listening to (free on Librivox) this short book.
Disclaimer, I am not Catholic, but try to study their positions seriously.  I think a friendly outside perspective may be helpful.
Catholics focus on verifiable objective facts.  The couple did make vows as nominal Catholics according to the premises of the question.  This can be verified from Church records, signed and witnessed.  Protestants focus on subjective realities.  Possibly, the individuals were just following family tradition getting married in a Catholic Church, and did not comprehend the seriousness of their vow.  The Catholic annulment process attempts to address the situation of making vows in ignorance or under compulsion (forced marriage) or false pretences.
If the the original vows were real, then both parties have been living in adultery, and had multiple kids in adultery.  The kids are going to be scarred.  The Law of Moses said: "No one of illegitimate (adulterous) birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD unto the 10th generation."
Nevertheless, Children of "putative marriages" (Canon 1061.3 An invalid marriage is said to be putative if it has been celebrated in good faith by at least one party. It ceases to be such when both parties become certain of its nullity.) are considered legitimate by the Catholic Church.
There is no way to unscramble this egg.  The Catholic prescription of "living as brother and sister" with the adulterous partners is as good as anything a Protestant denomination might suggest.  The Catholic Catechism paragraph 1649 and 1650 ends with:

"Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence."
Toward Christians who live in this situation, and who often keep the faith and desire to bring up their children in a Christian manner, priests and the whole community must manifest an attentive solicitude, so that they do not consider themselves separated from the Church, in whose life they can and must participate as baptized persons:
They should be encouraged to listen to the Word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts for justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace.

If the original vows were made in ignorance by both parties, then we have two (nominally Catholic) pagan families, at least two members of which now seek to obey Christ and rejoin the Catholic Church.  In this case, the original marriage was effectively pagan fornication.  This statement does not dismiss the Catholic ceremony - the couple disrespected it while making serious vows they did not mean.  In this case, the way forward is clear - stay with the current partners.  If the Catholic church cannot annul the vows made in ignorance (due to their unarguable objective reality), then the new marriages cannot be validated with (real this time) vows by the Church, and "living as brother and sister" is again the only option to avoid fornication in the eyes of the Church.
Since the first answer got voted down, I'm sure this one will too.  Broken eggs make a big mess.  GOD HATES DIVORCE.  Malachi 2:13-16
Not mentioned in the question is whether the new partners are also Believers seeking to obey Christ.  Are they also Catholic?  Or something else?
Now, because you are seeking to Obey Christ, it is up to Christ to make something beautiful out of this screwed up mess.  You don't have to understand the whole picture, or know the ultimate outcome.  Just do what is clear, and trust God to work all things together for good.
Addendum from comments:
Canon law site: http://www.catholicdoors.com/misc/marriage/canonlaw.htm
This confirms that the first marriage is the only valid one - but doesn't say what to do about this mess.  If there were no children, the clear course would be to separate from the adulterous partners.
It also has a web form to ask questions of a presumably knowledgeable Catholic.  I had previously discussed a similar situation with a serious and knowledgeable Catholic friend - not a source I can link to, but that is where my understanding about "living as brother and sister" as the Catholic approach to dealing with the mess comes from.  The Canon law page linked above confirms the necessity of protecting children in any decision.
The confessions (e.g. Westminster Confession) of most Protestant groups are just as strict about divorce - there are different approaches to dealing with the messes caused by divorce and remarriage.  The practice of these ideals has deteriorated horribly in all communions, including Catholic.
We all need to repent - Holy Marriage is the divinely chosen living illustration of Christ and the Church. 2 Corinthians 11:2 Revelation 19:7-9 When marriage is defiled, Christ is obscured.


How did Pascal reconcile his wager with 2 Corinthians 9:7 and Psalms 50? I'm not asking about a justification or an attack on Pascal's Wager.

I'm just curious how/if Blaise Pascal, being an intelligent and analytical fellow, reconciled his famous gambit with 2 Corinthians 9:7 and Psalm 50 in which we are effectively instructed not to give out of compulsion?

I presume many here are more versed in his writings than I am.

UPDATE: To expand a bit on what discrepancy I see, Pascal deduced that belief was a logical choice based on the risk of infinite loss. Yet a "faith" predicated on fear of loss is hardly the sort which interests God.
I paraphrase the verses referenced that God doesn't want "risk averse" faith.
Indeed, Kierkegaard seems to come by the opposite approach as Pascal: that faith does and should involve chosen risks.

I don't think Pascal intended the Wager to be pulled from Pensées and used as an independent, discrete argument for God.  But don't take my word for it, here's what the man says himself:

  Let us now speak according to natural lights.

  If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.

  Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for their belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason? They declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a foolishness, stultitiam; and then you complain that they do not prove it! If they proved it, they would not keep their word; it is in lacking proofs, that they are not lacking in sense. "Yes, but although this excuses those who offer it as such, and takes away from them the blame of putting it forward without reason, it does not excuse those who receive it." Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.—Pensée 233

Stultitiam is Latin meaning folly and is a direct reference to:

  For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.—1st Corinthians 1:21 (ESV)

In other words, Pascal rejects the Aquinian project to prove God and proceeds to defend the Christian's warrant1 to nevertheless believe that "God is".  It is a practical demonstration of the flaws of René Descartes' skepticism.  Life is more complicated than merely acting on true beliefs and not acting on false ones.  In fact we generally don't know the outcome of our decisions until long after they are made.2  But that doesn't prevent us from making those decisions—Pascal asserts that by merely existing, we must make the Wager; we must decide what our purpose in life is to be.

Pascal's further point is that even when we don't know the probabilities, the payoff of one of the choices may be so large as to make the decision of which horse to bet on easy.  Again, let's let him speak:

  The end of this discourse.—Now, what harm will befall you in taking [the Christian] side? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognise that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing.

Pascal argues that even if God is not, giving up "poisonous pleasures" will cost nothing since they will be replaced by other pleasures in this life.  So the Wager isn't so much believing in order to avoid the loss of heaven, but substituting one type of pleasure for another in the expectant hope of an infinite reward.  In fact, he seems to be giving the same advice that David gave:

Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good!
    Blessed is the man who takes refuge in him!
Oh, fear the LORD, you his saints,
    for those who fear him have no lack!
The young lions suffer want and hunger;
    but those who seek the LORD lack no good thing.

  —Psalm 34:8-10 (ESV)

Summary

Pascal isn't arguing that the Christian life is something to be entered into on the off chance that we will win the cosmic lottery.  Rather, he is proposing that Christians are not wrong to believe what they cannot prove.  Or as Jim Elliot wrote:

  He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.

Footnotes:

For a more comprehensive defence, see Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief.
One of the most monumental decisions in my life was to attend UCLA to study Atmospheric Sciences.  But the ripple effects of that decision are still not settled.  I've already won the bet in the most unexpected ways, including finding my wife.


Baptism in the New Testament Why was Jesus baptized in the New Testament? Moreover, why does baptism even exist in the New Testament? After reading the old it seems it is not present anywhere.

John the Baptist was baptizing in repentance of sin:

  1 In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea,
  2 "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."  3
  For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.'"  - Matthew 3:3
  - Matthew 3:1-3 ESV

And

  Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. - Matthew 3:8 ESV

And

  "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. - Matthew 3:11 ESV

But Jesus was without sin, and not in need of repentance, a point that John himself observes:

  13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him.
  14 John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" - Matthew 3:13-14 ESV

But Jesus tells him that:

  15 But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented.
  16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;
  17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." - Matthew 3:15-17 ESV

This then, is a fufillment of prophecy from Isaiah:

  3 A voice cries: "In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
  4 Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low; the uneven ground shall become level, and the rough places a plain.
  5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken."  - Isaiah 40:3-5 ESV

So John was baptizing people in a symbolic ceremony of repentance before the lord.  Jesus was baptized in a symbolic ceremony of the fufillment of prophecy and ordination from the Father, through John.  In doing so, it establishes Jesus authority and ministry.

Secondarily, and like all of Jesus' actions, it gives us a model for what we should be doing on Earth.

  18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
  19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
  20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." - Matthew 28:18-20 ESV

Most Protestant churches baptize today in a symbolic ceremony of the sins that are washed away through faith in Christ and as an outward public proclamation of the transformation happening inside the believer.


Did the Gospel Standard Baptists and the (original) Plymouth Brethren comment on unity between themselves? It seems to me a great shame that the Gospel Standard Baptists, in the days of such as J C Philpot, during the mid 19th century, did not have some kind of unity with the early movement of the Plymouth Brethren, in the days of J N Darby.

Both movements separated within their original bodies because of the controversy regarding the Eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ (I am quoting the title of J C Philpot's book on the subject).

The Plymouth Brethren split from what then became the Taylor Brethren (who said that Christ was only 'son' by virtue of incarnation) and the Gospel Standard Baptists were so-called because, after separation from other baptists for the same reason, they rallied to a publication, the Gospel Standard.

Both movements had their faults, but had they joined in unity, it seems to me, they would (one hopes) have been the means of correcting, or at least curbing, the faults of one another.

Is there any evidence, historically, that they had any thoughts of unity with one another ?

Introduction: The Gospel Standard is a Strict Baptist magazine first published in 1835 by William Gadsby.  Churches which align themselves with the magazine are known as "Gospel Standard Baptists" or "Gospel Standard Strict Baptists".  https://www.gospelstandard.org.uk/Magazines/Overview

Here is an extract from an article about the ‘English Strict Baptists’ which discusses the desire of The National Strict Baptist Federation (formed in 1946) to achieve unity.  The article concedes that the Federation has not brought the desired unity, even though efforts were renewed between 1962 and 1965 to obtain such unity.  The following conclusion is reached on page 35:

  If these Churches are to give the world a valid reason for their separate existence outside the Baptist Union, and to halt the decline of congregations and closure of chapels, something very drastic needs to happen. The prayer of those of all generations who are genuinely concerned about this sad state of affairs is that there will be a wholesome return to the doctrines which were held dear by the Particular Baptists who formulated the 1677 and 1689 Confessions of Faith.  It is believed that by a return to such doctrine there will come reform, renewal and unity amongst the Churches.  Source: https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/bq/21-1_030.pdf

So far, the drastic does not appear to have happened.

A different source of information https://www.the-highway.com/Sonship_Preface.html  comes from a book written in 1860 by J. C. Philpot of the Baptist movement entitled 'The True, Proper and Eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ':

  Today, some appear to be Exclusive Brethren and are headed by an Australian man, (and administered from Australia) calling themselves 'Plymouth Brethren' but their teaching contradicts the Leader of that, original, movement (J N Darby) who is quoted as saying: “If I hold the Son only as son from incarnation - I lose everything.”

From what I have discovered, the Brethren movement split in 1890.  One section led by F. E. Raven (the cause of the split) was succeeded by James Taylor Senior, who held at least some of Raven's views.  Raven and Taylor taught that the expression 'son of God' refers only to the One who came in flesh after his incarnation and not before.  Those who disagreed with this view, holding to the ‘eternal son-ship of Jesus Christ’, departed.

Conclusion: I have not found any evidence to suggest that the Strict Baptists and the early Plymouth Brethren attempted to reconcile their differences in order to achieve unity.  Of course, that does not mean no attempt was made.  However, the sad fact is that both groups have gone their separate ways, resulting in isolationism.


According to Calvinists, why did God say what He did to Cain in Genesis 4:7? Both high and low Calvinists from this Wiki say that God authorized the Fall, by which all deserve to be condemned.

Me: If there is no predestination at all, both Cain and Abel will end up in hell.

From this link Calvinists teach that Ephesians 2:8 declares that faith is given to the elect only.

Now, Hebrews 11:4 says:

  By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. (NIV, italics added)

Me: because there is predestination, Abel will end up in heaven while Cain will still end up in hell.

But Genesis 4:7 says:

  If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not
  do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have
  you, but you must rule over it. (NIV)

My question:

If God alone before the creation had already decreed that Cain would end up in hell, and that's why He will never give Cain faith, why did God say what He did to Cain in Genesis 4:7?

I think the confusion here lies in the extent of the gospel call.  That is, do Calvinists believe that all people are called to repent, or only the elect?

A defining position of Calvinism is that all are called to repent.  As Charles Hodge writes:

  This call is universal in the sense that it is addressed to all men indiscriminately to whom the gospel is sent. [...] It is made to the Jew and Gentile; [...] to the righteous and to the wicked; to the elect and to the non-elect. (3.14.1.2)

Those who believe that only the elect are called to repent are actually called hyper-calvinists.  For a comparison of their views on a somewhat similar passage, see my answer to: What is the Calvinist and Hyper-Calvinist understanding of the “whosoever will” from Rev. 22:17?

Returning to this passage, Calvinists see God here as commanding Cain to repent, to do what is right, and to resist sin, just as he commands all sinners to repent.

Indeed, in his commentary on this passage Calvin explicitly argues that God does not always give the ability to obey when he gives a commandment:

  They, however, childishly trifle, who distort this passage to prove the freedom of the will; for if we grant that Cain was admonished of his duty in order that he might apply himself to the subjugation of sin, yet no inherent power of man is to be hence inferred; because it is certain that only by the grace of the Holy Spirit can the affections of the flesh be so mortified that they shall not prevail. Nor, truly, must we conclude, that as often as God commands anything we shall have strength to perform it, but rather we must hold fast the saying of Augustine, ‘Give what thou commandest, and command what thou wilt.’ (Commentary on Genesis)

That is: God commands all to repent and turn from sin, but he does not intervene to change the natures of all who hear that command.  For some, the spiritual deadness of their nature remains, and thus they prefer to disobey the command and continue to live in sin.


Why did Jesus question God on the cross? Jesus was sent to earth to die for our sins. He knew it when the time came but from this verse:

  "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli,
  Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou
  forsaken me? " (Matthew 27:46).

He seemed to be saying "Hey Dad, why are you leaving me, this wasn't part of the plan."

With such a loud cry, this must have been an emotional pain he went through aside the physicaly pain on the cross. Why did he have to ask his Father that question?

I do not think that one reading the Gospel account could say that Jesus was wondering of the plan of God at this point in the salvation history. Here is how Jesus present himself in the good shepherd discourse :

  14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”
  The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Jn 10:14–18). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
  emphasis added

Jesus came to die on the cross. It was not part of the plan, but the plan all together. Here is how John the Baptist presents Jesus :

  29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
  The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Jn 1:29). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

The cross was the plan all along. Why did Jesus quote the psalm 22 on the cross? In doctrine there is a separation in the relationship between Jesus and God, when Jesus bored the sins on the cross. That was the first separation of Jesus with the Father since eternity past. That might be the reason why Jesus quotes this psalm.


Was Peter part of a militant sect? John 18:10 (NLT)

   10 Then Simon Peter drew a sword and slashed off the right ear of Malchus, the high priest’s slave.

The pastor at a church I used to go to once said1 that Peter was part of a militant sect of Judaism that felt like it was their duty to kill Roman soldiers as often as possible/prudent. This would explain why Peter had the sword with him and why his first instinct was to attack. However, I don't know either the name of this sect or whether he was involved in one.

1: If absolutely needed, I can dig up the sermon transcript online.

There was a militant sect in the first century known as the Kanai or Zealots. One of Jesus' apostles was named Simon the Zealot. Some scholars think he might have been associated with this group, but the best evidence seems to suggest the Zealots as a political organization did not exist until decades after Jesus' time. In any case, he was not the same person as Simon Peter.

A splinter group known as the Sicarii carried concealed daggers to kill Romans and Roman sympathizers. Some scholars have tried to suggest that Judas' second name Iscariot is a Hellenized version of Sicarii, but again the best evidence suggests they were not active until much later.

As for Peter's drawing the sword, the most plausible suggestion I've heard is that he was impulsive and often spoke or acted before considering the consequences, just like when:

he tried to walk on water following Jesus example, but couldn't
he rebuked Jesus for talking about suffering and dying
he promised Jesus that he would never deny him


How similar was the resurrected body of Jesus to his physical human body? Different Christian denominations have differing theologies of the resurrection: what it means for us, how it happened, and so on. What do the main bodies of Christian belief (Orthodox, Catholic, "mainline" Protestant) have to say, if anything, about Jesus' resurrected body, compared with the human body he had in his lifetime? Did he sleep? Did he grow tired? Did he get hungry? Did he have to defecate?

This passage from Luke seems to say that Jesus had flesh and bones, was hungry, and ate food, and this question assumes all those things are to be taken literally.

  Luke 24:36-43 ESV As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them.

Again, I'm looking for an overview of beliefs from major Christian denominations; answers can be based on Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Church Fathers, or whatever each denomination uses to construct its fundamental beliefs.

Oh man this is a good question!
As always, coming from a Catholic perspective:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say about resurrection generally:

What is "rising"? In death, the separation of the soul from the body, the human body decays and the soul goes to meet God, while awaiting its reunion with its glorified body. God, in his almighty power, will definitively grant incorruptible life to our bodies by reuniting them with our souls, through the power of Jesus’ Resurrection.
How? Christ is raised with his own body: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself"; but he did not return to an earthly life. So, in him, "all of them will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear," but Christ "will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body," into a "spiritual body" [Documents and Statements of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215]

But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel.... What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable.... The dead will be raised imperishable.... For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. (1 Cor 15:35-37, 42, 52, 53)

What I get from this is essentially that it's not clear, and it's not going to be clear until it happens, just exactly how Jesus' or any other person's resurrected body works. Of course things like growing tired, getting hungry, and eliminating food waste are natural processes; there's nothing wrong with them (though at least in the case of the last we have privacy restrictions and taboos relating to it). But resurrection gives us a "glorious body", and no one knows how that's going to work.
On the other hand, the older catechism, the Catechism of Pius V, is possibly a bit more definite:

Not only will the body rise, but whatever belongs to the reality of its nature, and adorns and ornaments man will be restored.

This seems to indicate that since these processes "[belong] to the reality of [the body's] nature" now, they will in the future. On the other hand, one of the qualities which this Catechism attributes to the resurrected is

impassibility, which shall place them beyond the reach of suffering anything disagreeable or of being affected by pain or inconvenience of any sort.

That certainly seems to mean that at a minimum there will be no upset stomachs :-) It might also be interpreted to mean that any of these processes that might be considered an "inconvenience" of sorts might also be eliminated.
I looked as well at Aquinas' Summa Theologica; that doesn't really seem to have anything that I could reasonably apply. So that's all I've got.
I'd have to go with the modern Catechism's apparent answer: "We really don't know."


What is the purpose of the ten Hail Marys in the Rosary if you should not focus on them? Many Catholics pray the Rosary every day. This is very good. They are meditating on the holy Mysteries. What I don't really get is the ten Hail Marys. I am not saying that it's vain repetition. That's not even an issue for me at all. This kind of repetition is very good according to me. I am only thinking about the purpose of the ten Hail Marys.
I myself have tried to pray the Rosary (and the Angelus) and always focused on the words of the Hail Mary and how it relates to the mysteries. The thing is: many people say that you should not even focus on the ten Hail Marys. It's hard to say prayers and trying not to focus on them. I am confused.
There are books with added words to the Hail Marys which allow you to focus on the words of the prayer. It can take some time to learn how to say prayers and never focusing on them. THe Rosary can be difficult for a beginner. All kinds of prayer have things that make them difficult for beginners.
The Rosary is bassically Lectio Divina with some added prayers.
What is the purpose of the ten Hail Marys in the Rosary if you should not focus on them?

What is the purpose of the ten Hail Marys in the Rosary if you should not focus on them?
The basics of your question can be answered here: How to pray and meditate while saying the rosary?
Knowing that some people may have a short attention span, the meditation on the Most Holy Rosary in ten Ave Marias intervals keeps our time frame to just about 15 minutes each time we pray the rosary. This may vary according to the language employed and the speed in which one recites a particular mystery one is contemplating.
Another point is that it means a great way to consecrate about 1% of our day to prayer and meditation. The can help up also help us pass the time in a waiting room, when we know we have just over 15 minutes to kill (pardoning the expression).
Pondering the actual meaning of the words one is pronouncing as one prays the rosary, is a fine way to say the rosary, especially for novices getting into the practice. As one gets more comfortable in this practice, other ways of meditation while saying the rosary will open up.
To put it simply: Reciting 10 Hail Marys gives us a time frame to help meditate on a Sacred Mystery for some 15 minutes of the day!
A second manner of praying the Rosary is to meditate in one certain biblical passages associated with the particular mystery one is reciting. This is called a scriptural rosary.
As one recites a Hail Mary one meditates on the word of God revealed in Sacred Scripture.
A third way to meditate the Mysteries is definitely the the most profound and in-depth manner to do. The soul that is accustomed to pray and meditation delves into the rosary mysteries by placing himself into the mystery contemplated and getting totally absorbed into the sacred realities being pondered. Some (very few) find this way of meditation as being a sort of second nature!
Some Jesuits like to put this in the sense that we try to place ourself at the very scene that we are contemplating and in a sense become a participant in the mystery we are meditating.
I like to think of this as making myself a fly on the wall and watching the the Mysteries of the rosary unfold before me.
Sorry for the lack of more Catholic references, but if I find anything of value I will edit it in.
As a side note, one can obtain CDs of praying the rosary with the pope. They are great for praying the rosary in a car when it is good to have your hands free for driving and not worrying about counting.


Why is the number 40 so common in the Bible? In a lot of books in the Bible, the number 40 keeps appearing. E.g. Jesus went into the desert for 40 days and nights, and the Jews spent 40 years looking for the promised land. Is this because of some significance of the number 40, or is it just coincidence?

Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) interprets the number 40, and related numbers in the Bible, as having three key meanings, often combined, based on the usage of the number 40 throughout the Bible:

Something lasting a full measure until completeness
A period of trial and temptation
A process of devastation or emptying out of evil

"Devastation" (traditionally "vastation") as Swedenborg's uses the word, is closely connected with spiritual trial and temptation. The very purpose of temptations—which are spiritual struggles and battles—is to weaken and empty out the evil and falsity that has a person, nation, or church in its grip in order to make room for good and truth from God to flow in and replace it. Until the existing evil and falsity has been emptied out, there is no room for God's goodness, truth, love, and wisdom, and therefore no possibility of salvation.

So the periods of trial and temptation commonly represented by 40, as harrowing, painful, and depressing as they may be, are absolutely necessary for our eternal salvation.

For people, nations, and churches that are implacably evil and unwilling to repent, this spiritual devastation leads to the ultimate judgment and destruction of a nation or church, or to the death and consignment to hell of an individual.

But for people, nations, and churches that are willing to repent and begin a new life in obedience to God's commandments, this period of spiritual devastation leads to the rejection of former evil desires, false beliefs, and wrong action, and their replacement with goodwill (meaning love for God and the neighbor), understanding of genuine truth, and right action, or "righteousness" in biblical terms.

As shown in the commentaries quoted below, though the number 40 in the Bible sometimes means simply full measure until completeness, more commonly it combines all three meanings, of full measure until completeness, of trial and temptation, and of the devastation and emptying out of evil of an individual, nation, or church.

Here are two key passages from Arcana Coelestia ("Secrets of Heaven"), Swedenborg's eight volume (in the original Latin edition) commentary on the books of Genesis and Exodus, in which he details these meanings, providing many references and quotes from the Bible where these meanings show clearly. Numeric references are to other sections in the same work, here linked for convenience.

The first passage quoted is from an older translation. For reference, "the Word" here means the Bible, and "influx" means a flowing in of God's presence, or of divine truth and divine love.

In the first passage the commentary focuses on the first meaning of 40 listed above, that of completeness.

  "And Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights" [Exodus 24:18] means the instructions given and influx in their completeness. This is clear from the meaning of "forty" as completeness. "Forty" means completeness because "four" means that which is complete, 9103, as similarly does "ten," 3107, 4638, and forty is the product of four multiplied by ten. For compound numbers have a meaning similar to the simple numbers of which they are the product, 5291, 5335, 5708, 7973; and all numbers in the Word mean spiritual realities, see 575, 3252, 4264, 4495, 4670, 5265, 6175. All this goes to explain why Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights. The fact that "forty" here means the instructions given and the influx in their completeness is evident from Chapters 25-32 which come next, recording the instructions Moses received, that is, instructions regarding the ark, Aaron, the urim and thummim, and sacrifices. The reason why influx in its completeness is also meant is that at that time Moses began to represent the outward holiness of the Word, which acted as the intermediary between the Lord and the people, and mediation is accomplished by means of influx through that holiness into the representative existing among that people, 9419.

  [2] It was because "forty" represented completeness that Moses remained on Mount Sinai forty days and forty nights not only this time but also on another occasion, Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 9:18, 25; 10:10. For the same reason the children of Israel wandered in the wilderness forty years until, as it says in Numbers 14:33, 34; 32:13, all that generation had been consumed; Jonah told the Ninevites that their city would be overturned after forty days, Jonah 3:4; the prophet was commanded to lie on his right side and bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days, Ezekiel 4:6; it says regarding Egypt that it would be made completely desolate for forty years, after which they would be gathered from the peoples, Ezekiel 29:11-13; and the earth was rained on forty days and forty nights, so that it was inundated with the flood, Genesis 7:4, 12, 17. From all this it is evident why the wicked person was to receive forty blows, Deuteronomy 25:3, for "forty blows" meant the punishment in its completeness. It is also evident what should be understood in the prophecy of Deborah and Barak when it says that no shield or spear was seen among the forty thousand of Israel, Judges 5:8, "among the forty thousand of Israel" meaning among them all. It is in addition evident why the temple built by Solomon was forty cubits long, 1 Kings 6:17, as was the new temple, according to Ezekiel 41:2; for in the highest sense "the temple" means the Lord, and in the internal sense heaven and the Church, so that "forty" means completeness in respect of representation. And it has a like meaning in other places. (Arcana Coelestia #9437, links added)

And an even more extensive explanation from earlier section in the same work, from a more contemporary translation.

In this second passage, the commentary focuses more on the second and third meanings of 40 given above: of trial (traditionally "temptation"), and of devastation or emptying out of evil, while still retaining the first meaning relating to the full measure and completeness of those trials and devastations.

  The fact that forty days and nights is a symbol for how long their trials last stands out clearly from the Lord’s Word.

  The use of forty as a symbol for the length that times of trial last comes from the fact that the Lord submitted to being tested for forty days, as shown in Matthew 4:1–2; Luke 4:2; and Mark 1:13. Each and every tradition established in the Jewish church, and in all the other representative churches that preceded the Lord’s Coming, foreshadowed him. So the forty days and nights did too, representing and symbolizing every time of struggle in general, and the length that any one time of struggle lasts in particular.

  When we are being tried, we experience the devastation or stripping away of everything self-centered and bodily. What is self-centered and bodily has to die—and die through combat and struggle—before we can be reborn as a new being, or in other words, as a spiritual and heavenly being. Because of this, forty days and nights also symbolize the length of time that devastation lasts. They do so here, in a verse that deals with both the trials of the people in the new church known as Noah and the devastation of the pre-Flood people.

  [2] The symbolism of forty as the duration of both trials and devastation, whether long or short, can be seen in Ezekiel:

    You shall lie on your right side and carry the wickedness of the house of Judah forty days; a day for each year is the [task] I have set for you. (Ezekiel 4:6)

  Forty stands for the length of time the devastation of the Jewish church lasted. It stands also as a representation of the Lord’s struggles, since it says that he was to carry the wickedness of the house of Judah. In the same author:

    I will turn the land of Egypt into wastelands, a ruinous wasteland. It will not be traversed by a human foot, nor will an animal’s foot traverse it, and it will not be inhabited for forty years. And I will make the land of Egypt a ruin in the middle of ruined lands; and its cities in the midst of wasted cities will be a lonely place for forty years. (Ezekiel 29:10–12)

  Again forty stands for the time it takes for them to be devastated (or laid waste) and ruined. On a deeper plane it positively does not mean forty years but only the overall process by which faith is brought to ruin, whether this takes a short or long time. In John:

    Throw out the courtyard that is outside the temple and do not measure it, because it has been given to the nations, which will trample the holy city for forty-two months. (Revelation 11:2)

  [3] And in the same author:

    The beast was given a mouth speaking grand things and blasphemies, and it was given authority to act for forty-two months. (Revelation 13:5)

  Here the number stands for the course that devastation runs, since it certainly does not mean a period of forty-two months, as anyone can see.
  This time the number mentioned is forty-two, which is the same as forty, for the following reason. Seven days symbolize the end of devastation and a new start while six symbolizes hard work, from the six days of labor or combat. Seven multiplied by six, then, produces forty-two, symbolizing the length of time devastation lasts and the length of time struggles or labor and conflict last for those who are being reborn. This period contains something holy. The round number of forty is a substitute for the exact figure of forty-two, as is clear from the above places in the Book of Revelation.

  [4] The fact that the Israelite people wandered in the wilderness for forty years before entering the land of Canaan likewise represented and symbolized the duration of hardship and also of devastation. The former was represented and symbolized by the fact that they did eventually enter the holy land. The latter was represented and symbolized by the fact that everyone who had passed the age of twenty by the time of leaving Egypt, except for Joshua and Caleb, died in the wilderness. Hardships are meant by the things against which the people murmured so many times, and devastation is meant by the plagues and deaths that so often struck.

  The symbolism of these events as trials and devastation will be shown where the relevant passages are explained, the Lord’s divine mercy permitting. Moses speaks of them this way:

    Remember all the path that Jehovah your God led you on these forty years in the wilderness to afflict you, to test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments or not. (Deuteronomy 8:2–3, 16)

  Moses’ forty days and forty nights on Mount Sinai are again a symbol for the length of time that struggle lasts, or for the testing of the Lord, as is clear in Moses:

    He was on Mount Sinai forty days and forty nights, not eating bread, not drinking water, pleading for the people that they not be destroyed. (Deuteronomy 9:9, 11, 18, 25–29; 10:10; Numbers 14:33–35; 32:8–14)

  [5] The reason forty days symbolize the duration of struggles, as noted, is that the Lord allowed himself to be tried by the Devil for forty days. Since everything represented the Lord, if the angels were thinking about trial, that idea was represented visually in the world of spirits by the kinds of things that exist in the world. All the thoughts angels have are made visible in representative form when they pass down into the world of spirits. So the number forty served for the idea of adversity, since the Lord would struggle for forty days. (To the Lord, and consequently to the angels in heaven, the future is the same as the present. What is to come is already here, or what will happen is already an accomplished fact.) This is why the number forty in the representative church was able to represent times of trial, and of devastation as well. (Secrets of Heaven #730, italics added)

Another extensive commentary on the number 40 and related numbers throughout the Bible is found in Swedenborg's posthumously published work Apocalypse Explained, #633.


Support Material for Reading the Bible I will start by describing some methods (and what I dislike about them) for studying the Bible.

Then, I will describe the method I would like to use to study the Bible.

Lastly, I will ask for supporting material for my idealized Bible study method.

What I have tried:

reading a fixed # of pages per day:

This worked well for a while (and read through the Bible a few times) based on this method -- but I ran into the problem of:

Old Testament was too slow
New Testament was too fast
did not get as much "theology" out of it

reading books / articles by reformed theologists

got a lot of theology out of it (yay)
did not like the fact that I was constantly jumping through verses in the Bible
feels "digested"

What I would like to try:

read a variable # of the pages of the Bible per day, and have supporting commentary that explains the main interesting theological points I should get out of the book/chapter/verse
this is something that is "like a concordance" but at a higher level. What I mean is as follows:

from a concordance, I get things likes: in this particular verse, the world foo means abc in the context ; in this particular verse, in the time/culture of when it was written, bar means def in the context
what I want is something like: this book contributes to developing the doctrine of predestination, verses XYZ relate to this, chapter ABC makes this point, etc ...

so I'm looking for something that is "systematic theology"-ish -- but I don't want to jump through verses of the Bible, I want something that develops systematic theology based on the order of the Bible
so I want something that is like:

in the Book of Genesis, we develop the following theological points

point 1 is developed in chapters A, B, C
point 2 is developed in chapters D, E, F

then, I go off and read the book of Genesis, and reference this supplementary material for the theological points

What is the closest thing that exists?

EDIT: This may be what I want :-)

From an Evangelical perspective, I suggest googling "inductive bible study" and having a browse. The reality is that any tool you choose will be 'digested' in some way. The book How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, Gordon D. Fee & Douglas Stuart looks at this issue at a meta level - there's a fair bit of useful stuff in there, but it basically in a nutshell, boils the process down to reading whole books multiple times until you can understand the micro (each verse/passage) in terms of the macro (the whole book) bearing in mind that each book itself should be considered in the light of the whole of scripture.

Some study bibles have extensive introductions and section plans for each book that outline the structure, themes, key terms and salient background details that are very helpful in coming to terms with the meaning of the book. A further step is using bible commentaries to help you understand the text at deeper level, but the theological perspective of the author will almost always come into play in a commentary. It wouldn't be my cup of tea personally, but according to your 'yay' for Reformed Theology, I draw your attention to the Reformation Study Bible ESV Version (there is also a a NKJV version and NIV Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible).


Did Jesus die earlier than expected? The Bible seems to indicate that Jesus died before the others that were being crucified.

  John 19:31-33 (NIV)
  31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.

It seems that the guards were attempting to speed up the process of crucifixion to appease the Jewish leaders.  But then they found that Jesus was already dead.

Did Jesus die "prematurely" (in the eyes of the Romans, that is)?  In other words, was his death shorter than the Romans intended it to be?

Yes, he did.

The Romans were experts at this and knew exactly what it took to kill someone and what it took to make that process slow. Crucifixion was designed to drag the act of dying out over a long period of time.

As you note in the John passage, Jesus died more quickly than they expected. The trial and execution had been rushed into an abnormal timeline already, the Sabbath was coming1, there had been an earthquake2 and they had other things they needed to attend to. In order to be sure that the death sentence was carried out without any chance of a criminal being revived after a "mostly dead all day"* experience the soldiers were ordered to break their legs1. This would accelerate the process from long hours and even days to a matter of a few minutes as the victims would suffocate: unable to pull push themselves up to catch a breath of air.

When they came to Jesus they didn't bother because he was already dead.3 Just to be sure they checked with a spear in his side (probably just under his rib-cage piercing a lung) and blood and water came out4. The fact that liquids has begun to separate is a sure medical indication of death.

This whole process fulfilled several prophecies. First of all he was pierced, something that was prophesied about his death5. Secondly not a bone was broken. Crucifixion didn't usually break any bones unless they did the little acceleration trick, which was ordered for him, but it was also prophesied that he would not suffer broken bones6. See also: Did the Romans not breaking Jesus' legs fulfill a prophecy?

Lastly his unexpected early death shows that it was likely not actually the process of crucifixion that killed him, but that even at the very end he willingly surrendered his own life after having born the wrath of his father and completing the course of punishment that he had to endure. Once that was over, he willingly spent his last breath and surrendered his life just as he said he was going to do.

  John 10:17 (ESV)
  For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.

* I need to ask on our meta The Princess Bride is an acceptable reference work.

  John 19:31 (ESV)
  Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away

  Matthew 27:54 (ESV)
  When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son1 of God!”

  John 19:33 (ESV)
  But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.

  John 19:34 (ESV)
  But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.

  Isaiah 53:5 (ESV)
  But he was pierced for our transgressions;
  he was crushed for our iniquities;
  upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
  and with his wounds we are healed.

  John 19:36 (ESV) (This verse in turn quotes Psalms 34:20)
  For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.”


Why is the line from Seth to Noah often called righteous? The line of descendants from Seth to Noah is often called righteous, in comparison to Cain's descendants who are called evil. This comes up when discussing Methuselah who although he died in the year of the flood supposedly can't have died in the flood because he was righteous, and as an explanation of what it means when the 'sons of God' took the 'daughters of men' in Genesis 6.

But Genesis 6:9 says Noah was the only blameless person alive!

Is there any evidence in the Bible to say that the rest of his ancestors were righteous rather than just being sinful like everyone else? (Excluding Enoch of course.)

In Noah's day, the whole world was found to be wicked at such an extreme level that God decided to destroy everything.  However, it was Noah who was found to be a righteous man, blameless among the people of his day.

  The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

9 These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God. Genesis 6:5-9 ESV

Noah's grandfather was Methuselah, whose name means "his death shall bring judgment".  According to the time of his death, he died the year of the flood--supposedly not from drowning but from natural causes.  His death brought judgment.

Noah's great grandfather--and Methuselah's father--was Enoch, who is noted as having "walked with God".  His walk with God was apparently so close that God took Him straight to heaven.

  When Enoch had lived 65 years, he fathered Methuselah. 22 Enoch walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Thus all the days of Enoch were 365 years. 24 Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.  Genesis 5:21-24 ESV

So, we know that Enoch was a very righteous man.  We also know that Noah was a very righteous man.  Thus, it seems that this was a righteous lineage, where the righteous fathers passed on to their children a deep reverence for God.

The evidence is not overwhelming, to be sure.  In fact, it's largely circumstantial.  Still, the conclusion is reasonable.


Is there a medical dispensation formally allowed from Lenten fasting in Catholicism? Today, 10 February 2016, begins the observation of Lent in the Catholic Church, and indeed in much of Western Christianity. Catholic rules for the observation of Lent include the requirement for adults to fast (that is, to reduce one's eating) on certain days:

Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
To the law of abstinence those are bound who have completed their 14th year of age. To the law of fast those of the faithful are bound who have completed their 21st year and up until the beginning of their 60th year.

(Apostolic Constitution Paenitemini, Paul VI, 1966; norm IV)

The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year.
The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.

(Code of Canon Law, canons 1252–1253)

Amended: "... the age of fasting is from the completion of the twenty-first year to the beginning of the sixtieth" (Paenitemini, norm IV) is amended to read "‘... the age of fasting is from the completion of the eighteenth year to the beginning of the sixtieth' in accord with canon 97."

(Complementary norm to Canon 1253; U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops)
Thus, although the general rule of fasting binds everyone who has "attained their majority", the local episcopal conferences can modify this rule, and the U.S. bishops have determined that "their majority" means from age 18.
I have heard, however, that this requirement is dispensed (waived) for those for whom it would be a medical hardship. But I can't find a reference to such a dispensation either in canon law or in anything published by the USCCB.
Is such a medical dispensation formally allowed for by the Church?

The USCCB website has several questions and answers about Lenten observances.
The last one of these is:

Q.  Are there exemptions other than for age from the requirement to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday?
A.  Those that are excused from fast and abstinence outside the age limits include the physically or mentally ill including individuals suffering from chronic illnesses such as diabetes.  Also excluded are pregnant or nursing women.  In all cases, common sense should prevail, and ill persons should not further jeopardize their health by fasting.


Did Jesus have a normal childhood? We are told nothing about Jesus childhood except what is recorded in the second chapter of Luke.
Luke Chapter 2 KJV

21  And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
22  And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
23  (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)
24  And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
39  And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.
40  And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
42  And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
43  And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.
46  And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
47  And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
48  And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
49  And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

Since Jesus at age twelve was keenly aware that he was the son of God, it begs to question whether or not Jesus ran and played with the other children or not.

James: Why don't you ever punish Jesus? Is He your favorite?

Joseph: He never does anything wrong.

James: Jesus always knows the right answer,  its not like He is God or something.

Mary: Actually He is, so go back and try again.

Humor aside, this is illustrative.

We know that He had siblings according to Mat 13:55-56

  “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and
  aren’t his brothers  James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his
  sisters with us? Where then did this  man get all these things?”

So He had at least 4 brothers and 3 sisters based on the grammer.

We also know that had emotions.  He often greeted His friends/disciples with "Rejoice". "Rejoice and be exceeding glad" (Matthew 5:12). Also consider that The One enthroned in heaven laughs (Psa 2:4).  He also cried, see Jhn 11:35-36

  Jesus wept. Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him!”

Jesus is fully human and fully God according to many passages; like Hbr 2:9

  But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little
  while, now  crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so
  that by the grace of God  he might taste death for everyone.

Based on all this we can surmise that Jesus did normal childhood things, except he always obeyed and never got in trouble.  There is no recorded history of Him running and playing or having a dirty diaper or scraping His knee but I am reasonable sure He did all of those things and more.  It is important, according to the Bible, that we be able to identify with Him.


What is some relevent scripture regarding having something stolen? I recently had some things stolen out of my car, and I vaguely remember reading somewhere in the New Testament that you shouldn't desire to get stolen items back. I've been searching for it, but I can't seem to find it.

Does anyone know the verse?
Also, is there any other encouraging scripture you could recommend on the topic?

As far as the verse you are looking for, it's sure to be this:

  Luke 6:29-30 (ESV)
  To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back.

Remember this is advice to YOU, not to the thief. We also know from Scripture that theft is wrong and there would be nothing intrinsically wrong with the thief being brought to justice. This verse is advice to you to guard your attitude. Worldly possessions will pass away anyway, they are not worth carrying a grudge over.

As far as your situation goes, I would recommend simply remembering that God takes care of his people. Though we may be sorely tried in this life, we know that God cares for us as a Father and not a hair falls from our head but that he knows it.


Why is the Ichthys symbol almost always facing left? This question is very straight forward: is there any reason for the Ichthys symbol to be almost always facing left? A simple google search will show this pattern.

Is there any theology or even symbolism for that?

Why is the Ichthys symbol almost always facing left?

No theological or symbolic reason seems to available as an answer. But I suspect that it may have to do something with the simple direction of which people are accustomed to write.

  When text is added to the symbol, for example 'Jesus' or 'ΙΧΘΥΣ', aesthetically it looks better to have the first letter of in the mouth of the fish rather than its tail. (The opposite direction is true for right-to-left writing, such as Arabic or Hebrew.) - Which way should the Christian fish symbol face?.

Other possibilities do exist, but the reason stated above seems most logical and was in fact my first thought on this matter.


Why did the soldiers go backward and fall down when Jesus said "I am he" in John 18:6? I really don't get it. Why did the soldiers trying to arrest Jesus go backward and fall to the ground in John 18:6? Was it because they realized that he was the I AM? If so, then why did they arrest him anyway?

Here are a few commentaries on this verse from Christian Bible scholars. To a large extent, they agree with your suspicion that the men were reacting to Messiah's use of the words "I AM," and the authority with which he spoke them. Parenthetical notes are the original authors'.

From Elliot's commentary for English Readers:

  They went backward, and fell to the ground.—There is nothing in the narrative to suggest that our Lord put forth miraculous power to cause this terror. The impression is rather that it was produced by the majesty of His person, and by the answer which to Jewish ears conveyed the unutterable name, “Jehovah” (I AM). (Comp. Note on John 8:24-25.) Guilt trembled before the calmness of innocence. Man fell to the ground before the presence of God. To Judas the term must have been familiar, and have brought back a past which may well have made him tremble at the present. To the officers the voice came from Him of whom they had been convinced before that “Never man spake like this man” (John 7:46). They have come to take Him by force, but conscience paralyses all their intentions, and they lay helpless before Him. He will surrender Himself because His hour is come (John 17:1); but His life no one taketh from Him. For this sense of awe in the presence of Christ, comp. the account of the cleansing of the Temple in John 2:14 et seq.

From MacLaren's Expositions of the Holy Scriptures:

  ‘I am He!’ When the Band were thus doubly assured by the traitor’s kiss and by His own confession, why did they not lay hands upon Him? There He stood in the midst of them, alone, defenceless; there was nothing to hinder their binding Him on the spot. Instead of that they recoil, and fall in a huddled heap before Him. Some strange awe and terror, of which they themselves could have given no account, was upon their spirits. How came it about? Many things may have conspired to produce it. I am by no means anxious to insist that this was a miracle. Things of the same sort, though much less in degree, have been often enough seen; when some innocent and illustrious victim has for a moment paralysed the hands of his would-be captors and made them feel, though it were but transiently, ‘how awful goodness is.’ There must have been many in that band who had heard Him, though, in the uncertain light of quivering moonbeams and smoking torches, they failed to recognise Him till He spoke. There must have been many more who had heard of Him, and many who suspected that they were about to lay hands on a holy man, perhaps on a prophet. There must have been reluctant tools among the inferiors, and no doubt some among the leaders whoso consciences needed but a touch to be roused to action. To all, His calmness and dignity would appeal, and the manifest freedom from fear or desire to flee would tend to deepen the strange thoughts which began to stir in their hearts.

From Barnes' Notes on the Bible

  hey went backward ... - The cause of their retiring in this manner is not mentioned. Various things might have produced it. The frank, open, and fearless manner in which Jesus addressed them may have convinced them of his innocence, and deterred them from prosecuting their wicked attempt. His disclosure of himself was sudden and unexpected; and while they perhaps anticipated that he would make an effort to escape, they were amazed at his open and bold profession. Their consciences reproved them for their crimes, and probably the firm, decided, and yet mild manner in which Jesus addressed them, the expression of his unequalled power in knowing how to find the way to the consciences of men, made them feel that they were in the presence of more than mortal man. There is no proof that there was here any miraculous power, any mere physical force, and to suppose that there was greatly detracts from the moral sublimity of the scene.

Other commenters give similar commentary. As for your second question, "why did they arrest him anyway?" I'll give another sample from MacLaren, though the emphasis is mine:

  Thus, then, we may see in that picture of our Lord’s surrendering Himself that His trembling disciples might go free, an emblem of what He does for us, in regard to all our foes. He stands between us and them, receives their arrows into His own bosom, and says, ‘Let these go their way.’ God’s law comes with its terrors, with its penalties, to us who have broken it a thousand times. The consciousness of guilt and sin threatens us all more or less, and with varying intensity in different minds.
  He died because He chose; He chose because He loved. His love had to die in order that His death might be our life, and that in it we should find our forgiveness and peace. He stands between our foes and us. No evil can strike us unless it strike Him first. He takes into His own heart the sharpest of all the darts which can pierce ours. He has borne the guilt and punishment of a world’s sin. These solemn penalties have fallen upon Him that we, trusting in Him, ‘may go our way,’ and that there may be ‘no condemnation’ to us if we are in Christ Jesus.

In summary, MacLaren's answer is that they still arrested him because it was his divine will to be arrested in place of his disciples, and also to suffer and die in their place, and indeed in our place.


What level of assent does the 2018 teaching on capital punishment require of Catholics? On August 2nd, 2018, Pope Francis made a change to the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding capital punishment.

In Catholicism there are various levels of Magisterial teaching, a concept which derives from the document Donum Veritatis.  Each level of Magisterial teaching requires a different level of assent from the Catholic faithful (cf. Wikipedia on levels of teaching and assent).  Two well-recognized levels of assent are the assent of faith, and religious assent.

There is a primary and a secondary question which are closely related:

What level of assent does this new teaching on capital punishment require of Catholics?
To what level of Magisterial teaching does this new teaching belong?

The new wording of the Catechism, as approved by Pope Francis, does not quite require Catholics to disapprove of the death penalty in all circumstances.

  Was the Pope’s decision to  revise the Catechism’s teaching on the death penalty a change in Church teaching, or a development of existing doctrine? Theologians may debate the point, but the vast majority of Catholics, receiving their information from the secular media, will hear about a change—a clear break from previous Church teaching.

  Even the new wording of the Catechism, as approved by Pope Francis, does not quite require Catholics to disapprove of the death penalty in all circumstances. The Pope’s new language does not contradict the time-honored Church teaching that the state has the authority to invoke the death penalty in appropriate circumstances. (That traditional teaching was clearly upheld, in the same section 2267 of the Catechism, even after Pope John Paul II called for a tighter restriction on executions.)

  Nor does the revised Catechism teach that the use of capital punishment is intrinsically immoral. So when liberal Catholic activists argue, as they inevitably will, that politicians who support the death penalty should be judged as harshly as those who support abortion and euthanasia, they will be distorting the Church’s teaching. Again. - Pope Francis and the death penalty: another dose of confusion

  The Pope can say—indeed Pope John Paul II did say—that it is always wrong, in every case, deliberately to take the life of an innocent human being. But if he values logical consistency, he cannot say that it is always wrong to take an innocent life under current political conditions. Because political conditions change.

  Cardinal José Gomez of Los Angeles, in a Twitter comment on the Pope’s announcement, offered his own version of the case for change:

    The Church has come to understand that from a practical standpoint, governments now have the ability to protect society and punish criminals without executing violent offenders.

  Expressed in those terms, the change in teaching prompts a number of questions:

  •If a doctrine is based on a “practical” judgment, who should make that judgment? If it is primarily a political judgment, should it not be made by political leaders?

  •Do all governments have the ability to protect innocent civilians effectively? If not, how can capital punishment be “inadmissible” in all cases?

  •Who should decide what constitutes adequate protection for civilians? Again, is that not clearly a political judgment?

  •What would happen if, “from a practical standpoint,” governments lost the ability to protect civilians? Would the Church teaching on capital punishment be changed again? - Pope Francis on capital punishment: doctrine built on shifting sands?

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as John Paul’s chief doctrinal officer, explicitly affirmed some of the faithful may indeed have a different outlook on the subject of the application of the death penalty, as reported in an article on FirstThings.com — Pope Francis and Capital Punishment:

  It was clearly and consistently taught by the popes up to and including Pope Benedict XVI. That Christians can in principle legitimately resort to the death penalty is taught by the Roman Catechism promulgated by Pope St. Pius V, the Catechism of Christian Doctrine promulgated by Pope St. Pius X, and the 1992 and 1997 versions of the most recent Catechism promulgated by Pope St. John Paul II—this last despite the fact that John Paul was famously opposed to applying capital punishment in practice. Pope St. Innocent I and Pope Innocent III taught that acceptance of the legitimacy in principle of capital punishment is a requirement of Catholic orthodoxy. Pope Pius XII explicitly endorsed the death penalty on several occasions. This is why Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as John Paul’s chief doctrinal officer, explicitly affirmed in a 2004 memorandum:

    If a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment … he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities … to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible … to have recourse to capital punishment.


How do Evangelicals explain when Paul writes "I, not the Lord"? Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7:10 (NKJV):

  Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband

In verse 12 Paul writes:

  But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her.

How do Evangelicals explain this in line with scripture inspired by God?

Evangelical commentators generally hold that Paul is speaking authoritatively in 1 Corinthians 7:12, and only indicating that he was not aware of any direct teaching on this subject by Jesus during his earthly ministry.  The Reformation Study Bible explains:

With regard to the problem treated in vv. 10, 11, there was a well-known instruction given by Jesus during His earthly ministry (Mark 10:1–12).  In vv. 12–16, however, Paul discusses a difficult situation that had not been expressly addressed by the Lord while He walked the earth.  His apostolic commands, however, come by inspiration and have divine authority, as 14:37 makes clear.

Others who make this point include The New Bible Commentary:

The problem of mixed marriages would hardly have arisen during Christ's ministry, and so Paul cannot quote a specific word of the Lord.  But his own judgment is given authoritatively.

And Barry G. Webb, writing in The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures, edited by D. A. Carson, says:

Paul's distinction between what he gives as a command of Christ ("not I, but the Lord") and what he gives only as his own word ("I, not the Lord") cannot be taken as distinguishing between what has apostolic authority and what does not.  He writes the entire epistle as "an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God" (1:1).  The basic distinction seems to be between appealing to a specific teaching of Jesus, and speaking as an apostle without being able to appear to any specific teaching of Jesus regarding the issue at hand. (chapter 19, fn. 17)

The ESV Study Bible says:

Paul views his admonition here as authoritative and inspired, not merely as human wisdom (v. 40; cf. 14:37–38).

The MacArthur Study Bible:

Not a denial of inspiration or an indication that Paul is giving human opinion, but simply a way of saying that Jesus had not spoken on this and God had not previously given revelation on the matter, as Paul was then writing.

Constable's Commentary agrees:

For mixed couples, Paul could not cite a teaching of Jesus, because He had
not spoken on this subject. At least, as far as Paul knew He had not.
Nevertheless, the risen Lord inspired Paul's instructions on this subject, so
they were every bit as authoritative as the teaching Jesus gave during His
earthly ministry.

And so does the Moody Bible Commentary:

Paul was not aware of any teaching on mixed marriages given by Jesus, but as an apostle inspired by God, Paul's words are binding.

Conclusion
Evangelicals broadly agree that what Paul writes in 7:12 is inspired and just as authoritative as the other teachings that Paul gives.
That said, it's perhaps worth noting that Evangelicals accept that some apostolic speeches and writings are not strictly inerrant in their content (though the record is still accurate).  For example, they admit that Paul speaks erroneously in Acts 20:25, and that in 2 Corinthians 8, he gives advice, not a divine command.  On the latter case, Barry Webb writes:

Just as the Old Testament Scriptures contain "command" (law) and "advice" (wisdom teaching), so do the writings of the apostles; but all of it is Scripture.

But with respect to the verses in question here, these comments are merely tangential – Evangelicals generally accept 1 Corinthians 7:10ff. as authoritative commands, under the inspiration of God.


Are Catholics allowed to read the NIV translation? I know this is kind of an odd question.  However, there is a question that has popped into my mind while considering these quality standards that we've been starting to implement.

My thoughts are that the Catholic Bible includes books that are not part of the Protestant canon.  Furthermore, I know the translations aren't identical between the translation used in Protestant churches and those used in Catholic churches.

So, do Catholics consider the NIV (and other translations that do not include the Deuterocanonical books) as "Protestant" translations?  If so, is there any doctrine or tradition that excludes Catholics from reading these translations?

That's a very tricky question which deserves some bullet points.

The scripture used during Mass and liturgical events and prayers (Benediction, Liturgy of the Hours) should always come from the Vulgate (Latin) Bible. In the United States we use the older New American Bible, with the revised edition waiting in the wings to be implemented at some future date (we'll be able to walk in the valley of the shadow of death again, yay!)

Dei Verbum (the dogmatic constitution on sacred scripture, which came out of Vatican II (the big 1960's Catholic get together)) printed at the beginning of many Catholic Bibles says this:

And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them. (Source)

So, there's a Catholic edition of all sorts of Protestant Bibles. I've got a "The Way" Catholic Edition and a "Good News" Catholic Edition and an Oxford Study Bible (With Apocrypha).
What a Catholic would look for at the start of any book is a nihil obstat (nothing stands in the way) and Imprimatur (let it be printed), meaning there is nothing in book that goes against Catholic doctrine.  "Make Way for Ducklings" could qualify for a nihil obstat. It's not sign of approval, but of non-disapproval.
Frankly the translation doesn't mean a lot to Catholics since we're not the ones who are supposed to interpret the Bible, and interpretation and translation are totally different things.

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on,  has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed. (Ibid)

So, we don't need to shield our eyes when someone gives us a verse from the NIV or anything, we just can't assume that we know what anything means unless it's been explained authoritatively to us through the Church.
And the explanation is the eternal unchanged explanation, in the context of the entirety of scripture and in line with the consistent teaching of the Bishops.
So, if we read that Mary was the happiest of women, we know that that happiness is the happiness that can only come from knowing that she is to be the Mother of God and that the term happiness is synonymous with blessed - even though in general happiness and blessedness don't mean exactly the same thing.