Why didn't God omit non-essential information from the Bible? In the Bible you'll find passages like -

  Exodus 37 Bezalel made the ark of acacia wood—two and a half cubits
  long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high.[a] 2 He
  overlaid it with pure gold, both inside and out, and made a gold
  molding around it. 3 He cast four gold rings for it and fastened them to its four feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other. 4 Then he made poles of acacia wood and overlaid them with gold. 5 And he inserted the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark to carry it. 6 He made the atonement cover of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. 7 Then he made two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. 8 He made one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; at the two ends he made them of one piece with the cover. 9 The cherubim had their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim faced each other, looking toward the cover.

And then some others like -

  Genesis 46:8 These are the names of the sons of Israel (Jacob and his
  descendants) who went to Egypt: Reuben the firstborn of Jacob. 9 The
  sons of Reuben: Hanok, Pallu, Hezron and Karmi. 10 The sons of Simeon:
  Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jakin, Zohar and Shaul the son of a Canaanite
  woman. 11 The sons of Levi: Gershon, Kohath and Merari. 12 The sons of
  Judah: Er, Onan, Shelah, Perez and Zerah (but Er and Onan had died in
  the land of Canaan). The sons of Perez: Hezron and Hamul. 13 The sons
  of Issachar: Tola, Puah,[a] Jashub[b] and Shimron. 14 The sons of
  Zebulun: Sered, Elon and Jahleel. 15 These were the sons Leah bore to
  Jacob in Paddan Aram,[c] besides his daughter Dinah. These sons and
  daughters of his were thirty-three in all. 16 The sons of Gad:
  Zephon,[d] Haggi, Shuni, Ezbon, Eri, Arodi and Areli. 17 The sons of
  Asher: Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi and Beriah. Their sister was Serah. The
  sons of Beriah: Heber and Malkiel. 18 These were the children born to
  Jacob by Zilpah, whom Laban had given to his daughter Leah —sixteen in
  all. 19 The sons of Jacob’s wife Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin. 20 In
  Egypt, Manasseh and Ephraim were born to Joseph by Asenath daughter of
  Potiphera, priest of On.[e] 21 The sons of Benjamin: Bela, Beker,
  Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi, Rosh, Muppim, Huppim and Ard. 22 These were
  the sons of Rachel who were born to Jacob—fourteen in all. 23 The son
  of Dan: Hushim. 24 The sons of Naphtali: Jahziel, Guni, Jezer and
  Shillem. 25 These were the sons born to Jacob by Bilhah, whom Laban
  had given to his daughter Rachel —seven in all.

Wait there's more -

  Nehemiah 7:7 The list of the men of Israel: 8 the descendants of Parosh   2,172 9 of
  Shephatiah    372 10 of Arah  652 11 of Pahath-Moab (through the line of
  Jeshua and Joab)  2,818 12 of Elam    1,254 13 of Zattu   845 14 of
  Zakkai    760 15 of Binnui    648 16 of Bebai 628 17 of Azgad 2,322 18 of
  Adonikam  667 19 of Bigvai    2,067 20 of Adin    655 21 of Ater (through
  Hezekiah) 98 22 of Hashum 328 23 of Bezai 324 24 of Hariph    112 25 of
  Gibeon    95 26 the men of Bethlehem and Netophah     188 27 of Anathoth
    128 28 of Beth Azmaveth 42 29 of Kiriath Jearim, Kephirah and Beeroth
    743 30 of Ramah and Geba    621 31 of Mikmash   122 32 of Bethel and Ai
    123 33 of the other Nebo    52 34 of the other Elam 1,254 35 of
  Harim 320 36 of Jericho   345 37 of Lod, Hadid and Ono    721 38 of
  Senaah    3,930

My question is why did God choose to include all this information in the Bible? How would the 760 men of Zakkai help anyone in this age or any past or future age, draw closer to God? Contrast this with how small the important narratives like the flood & Noah or the Crucifixion of Christ are.

This doesn't seem like God inspiring the Bible to communicate with men. This seems more like random writings of people about their society and culture put together in one book.

What is the reason for this?

We can't always know the exact reason why there appears extraneous information in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, but there are often discernible reasons why it was important at the time.  To us it seems extraneous, but to them it was not.

Let's explain through the cases you listed.

First,  the details of the ark.

Only the priests on rare occasion could see these holy objects and then only briefly. As they had great symbolic value in representing the future Messiah and as each detail should therefore be pondered on by those ancient worshippeers, to somehow catch a heavenly view, typed out into future prophecy, the details may have been quite important.  To us, maybe not so much.

Second, the sixty six son's of Israel that went down into Egypt

Here we go, yes, some people went into Egypt, became slaves and were eventually delivered by Moses, so what? However at the time a promise was made to Abraham that the Messiah would be born under his lineage, and that he would be made into a great nation.  Now all the ancestral lineage of this family to which the Messiah would be born is important to those who followed it, because eventually it must be proven that Christ descended from that line. Yet in this case there is even more interest to those who later were delivered from Moses.  Was it not worth pondering on the facts that even in servitude to a foreign power that almost tried to exterminate the Jews to control population, yet from these few names over a million were taken out of Egypt! So even under these difficult situations the details of these names would shown to those people at the time that God kept his promise to Abraham.

Third, Nehemiah's list of families that returned from the Babylonian exile

To us again these are just names. To Israel at the time this was a great miraculous work of God delivering his people similar to the Exodus under Moses.  That each family retuning to Jerusalem was precious tokens of the prophets who foretold a remnant would return, Nehemiah takes care to record.  Not only would this might spur on other to leave their lives behind in Babylon and join the 'city of God' but to ponder on God's concern for each family and his fulfillment of prophecy to them. Use have kindled Jewish hope after the sorrowful despair and attach on their faith in seeing something they never believed possible, the destruction of the temple of their God.

So we see, what is extraneous to us, was important to them, and yet it still teaches us useful things today. Not everything was written just for us but God preserved a people of faith since Adam, and they needed many support not to be swallowed whole by a world under the Devil's command, who desired nothing more than to destroy and stamp out any remaining fragments of true faith.  it is a miracle like carrying a candle across a stormy sea, that a people of God, and the lineage of Christ was sustained from the call of Abraham until the birth of a Son from a virgin. Each supporting beam that carried these people fully to the Promise is precious, beautiful, natural, yet divinely rich. Just like Christ, who was a like a tender plant, and a root out of a dry ground, or like Aaron's rod, which seemed like just a dry stick, but became a living branch, budded, and blossomed, so the dry scripture actually rose up into a living support of God's loved people and reach far into the future to safely support the arrival of Messiah.


Has any church organization refused lottery winnings as donation? Sometimes I've played the lottery when it gets over $100 million, thinking I could retire on a small fortune and then give tens of millions away to charity, including of course, Christian ones.

Has anyone ever seen a congregation or parachurch organization (pick the Billy Graham Evangelical Association for example) flatly refuse a donation because it came from lottery winnings? I'm actually wondering about the prevalence of such refusals, or denominational / charity by-laws that state up front they would not accept such funds.

I'm not immediately interested in debating the sinfulness of playing the lottery. Although citations of its sinfulness in refusing donations is of course of interest.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has an official policy of not accepting any tithing from winnings having to do with gambling, this includes the lottery. Their position on gambling can be found here.

For those that don't want additional information/links the position is this:

  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is opposed to gambling, including lotteries sponsored by governments. Church leaders have encouraged Church members to join with others in opposing the legalization and government sponsorship of any form of gambling.


What resurrection are they talking about? Matthew 22:28 I've developed the habit of not-just-reading the Bible, but dedicated my precious moment-just-after-waking-up time to give some effort to study the Bible every morning slowly. I read the Gospel chapters (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) at least once in a lifetime, well I'm reading it yet again with a hope that I might find something new and astounding and now I'm hit with this particular verse

“Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”
(Matthew 22:28 NIV)

What resurrection are the Sadducees talking about? Because what I presume of the resurrection is that Jesus will come to earth, departing the heavens at the time no one knows, not even the angels (and we must be always prepared for him, living a blameless life, well, I repent all the time in Jesus's name, nevertheless, God loves me whatsoever). And while he comes again, the dead in Christ will rise first and are gathered together and ascend into heaven with Jesus. This what I imagine of the "resurrection" (of humankind) but when I read this particular verse, I am confused as to how they see "resurrection", from what I understand is that the Sadducees think "resurrection" is continuation of bloodline or something, when a husband dies, it is his male siblings' responsibility to continue his bloodline by making love with his wife or something like that or even if all his siblings die, the wife remains by herself as a childless widow, or someone "should" bear her children(I assume this is hard so that's the reason the Sadducees must have thought there is no "resurrection"). But my question here is,
What resurrection are they talking about?

The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, the question was simply a set up.
Even though they did not believe in this, the resurrection they are referring to is the resurrection of dead the Pharisees believe in, which according to Act 23 is similar to what Paul (Christians) believes in.

6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided.
8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.


Why did early Christians believe in the Real Presence? I'd imagine that if Christ directly taught the doctrine of the Real Presence, then one of the Gospels would have recorded it. So given that fact that it isn't directly taught, let us assume for the sake of argument that Christ did not explicitly teach this doctrine.

If this is the case, why did the early Christians seem to universally assume this doctrine to be true? Most notable example of this is St. Justin Martyr's First Apology. (I also say it seems to be "universally" assumed because nobody argued against the idea. This implies people thought of it as a typical Christian teaching.)

The typical proofs I hear from Catholic apologists are:

a certain reading of John 6
an insistence that the Words of Institution should be taken literally
a long proof of the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice (not merely a sacrifice of praise) thus implying the victim of this sacrifice must be Christ

But I cannot find any of these arguments in the early Christian writings. Further, it seems implausible that early Christians would even mount some of these arguments. i.e. it seems unlikely that St. Justin Martyr argued for the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice considering that he hardly quotes the NT (he vaguely references the Gospels and Revelation). He displays little to no knowledge of the Apostolic letters.

If you know of any early Christians making one of these three arguments, let me know.

Now, the fourth argument Catholic apologists make is from the testimony of the early Christians! So this leads me to my question. On what basis did the early Christians get this idea of the Real Presence in the first place? More specifically, if Christ didn't teach the doctrine of the Real Presence explicitly, where did the apostles/early Christians supposedly get the idea?

Update: Some on another forum have simply asserted that the Apostles themselves verbally taught the early Christians the doctrine of the Real Presence. However, this just pushes the question one step further. Where did the Apostles get the idea from if Jesus did not explicitly teach it? Did the Apostles simply take the Words of Consecration literally at the Last Supper? Any theory is welcome (though citing a scholar who proposes a theory is best). This is indeed a very speculative question.

Update 2: Some users are trying to close this question on the basis that I “falsely” assume that Christians from the 2nd century onward generally believed in the Real Presence. I would hope people’s personal theological beliefs are not driving this movement, as it is indeed historically factual that Christians from the 2nd century onward believed Christ was truly present in the Eucharist. This is a theoretical question about the development of the belief in the Real Presence, not an apology for Catholicism or Protestantism. Please base your answers in history, not personal theological opinions.

J. N. D. Kelly (Early Christian Doctrines) contends that the early conception of the real presence was the result of a connection made between the OT sacrificial system and the eucharist.

Citing the Didache, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus, he writes:

  Malachi's prediction (1, 10 f.) that the Lord would reject the Jewish sacrifices and instead would have 'a pure offering' made to Him by the Gentiles in every place was early seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the eucharist. (196)

Others made the connection as well, like Clement and Ignatius.  Kelly argues that this was "natural":

  It was natural for early Christians to think of the eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfilment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, 'Do this', must have been charged with sacrifical overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, 'Offer this'. (196)

From here we need to identify what they considered the sacrifice to be.  In the case of Justin, the eucharist is clearly "much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection":

  Altogether it would seem that, while his language is not fully explicit, Justin is feeling his way to the conception of the eucharist as the offering of the Saviour's passion. (197)

Irenaeus's take is similar:

  The idea of the passion pervades this approach too, for Irenaeus identifies the gifts with Christ's body and blood and describes them, in language reminiscent of the Lord's words at the Last Supper, as 'the oblation of the new covenant'. (197)

Thus the eucharist is seen as a sort of continuation of the OT sacrificial system under the new covenant, and as such it makes sense that such sacrifices would need to be more than mere bread and wine.

Another potential factor, mentioned by Kelly in passing, is the early church's fight against Docetism, the idea that Christ did not have a real body.  He notes Ignatius's defense of the real presence in that context:

  Ignatius roundly declares that 'the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised'. The bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup His blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists' denial of the reality of Christ's body. (197)


How does the Protestant OT canon differ from the Jewish scriptures? Is the OT canon currently accepted by Protestants the same as the Jewish scriptures? If not, where and how do they differ?

The Protestant books of the Old Testament are exactly the same as the Jewish books in the Tanakh. There is absolutely no difference.


Please clarify Phil 2:8-9 with reference to the Trinity In Philippians 2:8-9 we read:

  He [Jesus] humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross.
  Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor and gave him the name above all other names

For many years I studied with the Jehovah's Witness, and now years later I still have trouble with the doctrine of the Trinity.

Can you please clarify this passage for me:

If Jesus is God, how could he humble himself in obedience to God? (As God he could do no wrong and therefore could not be disobedient by definition?)
If Jesus is God, how could God elevate him [Jesus] to the place of highest honour? (Surely Jesus was already at the highest place because He is equal to God?)

St. Thomas Aquinas addresses your questions in his Summa Theologica I q. 42 ("Of Equality and Likeness among the Divine Persons"). Specifically, regarding your

first question, see ibid. a. 6 obj. 2:Objection 2: Further, greater is the power of him who commands and teaches than of him who obeys and hears. But the Father commands the Son according to Jn. 14:31: "As the Father gave Me commandment so do I." The Father also teaches the Son: "The Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that Himself doth" (Jn. 5:20). Also, the Son hears: "As I hear, so I judge" (Jn. 5:30). Therefore the Father has greater power than the Son.and St. Thomas's reply (ad 2):Reply to Objection 2: The Father's "showing" and the Son's "hearing" are to be taken in the sense that the Father communicates knowledge to the Son, as He communicates His essence. The command of the Father can be explained in the same sense, as giving Him from eternity knowledge and will to act, by begetting Him. Or, better still, this may be referred to Christ in His human nature.

and your

second question, see ibid. a. 4 obj. 1:Objection 1: It would seem that the Son is not equal to the Father in greatness. For He Himself said (Jn. 14:28): "The Father is greater than I"; and the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:28): "The Son Himself shall be subject to Him that put all things under Him."and St. Thomas's reply (ad 1):Reply to Objection 1: These words are to be understood of Christ's human nature, wherein He is less than the Father, and subject to Him; but in His divine nature He is equal to the Father. This is expressed by Athanasius, "Equal to the Father in His Godhead; less than the Father in humanity": and by Hilary (De Trin. ix): "By the fact of giving, the Father is greater; but He is not less to Whom the same being is given"; and (De Synod.): "The Son subjects Himself by His inborn piety"—that is, by His recognition of paternal authority; whereas "creatures are subject by their created weakness."

cf. also Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s commentary on this question from his Trinity & God the Creator.


Did the original reformers believe in a Magisterium? I have seen the original reformers referred to as the "Magisterial reformers" a couple of times over the past few years, and I'm only now wondering what the significance of that phrase is.

Does it imply that the original reformers (eg Luther and Calvin) believed in a Magisterium? That is, did they believe in an official teaching office of the Church that has the power to proclaim binding dogmas? (In the Catholic system this is the Pope and all the Bishops who are in communion with him)

Another reason I ask is directly related to this: I've read that the original reformers had a very different view of "Sola Scriptura" when compared to modern day protestant evangelicals. Apparently they didn't believe in the "private interpretation" which is common in the protestant church today. This leads me to wonder, if they didn't believe in private interpretation, then did they believe in submitting to official church teachings instead, like Catholics do?

(Of course if they did indeed believe this, they presumably didn't identify the church with the Catholic church of the day, but instead identified it with their own new and unique denominations)

I've also read that during the reformation, Calvin ruled Geneva theologically and politically, almost as if he were a bishop or Pope of his own new version of Christianity. I understand that he subscribed to sola scriptura, but he was the only person in Geneva who was permitted to actually study the bible and come to theological conclusions  (This is my understanding; I'm open to further information/correction).

The reason I bring this up is that it seems to indicate that Calvin regarded himself as an alternate, authoritative Magisterium of the church.

Final note: I have always been utterly baffled by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as presented by modern evangelical protestants.  It has always seemed fundamentally broken, incoherent and illogical to me. It is impossible to infallibly recognise the canon of scripture when you deny Church authority (This was a deal breaker for me and caused me to convert to Catholicism).

However I think I'm finally seeing the light. I can understand Christianity following a doctrine of Sola Scriptura provided that there is also an authoritative Magisterium which is operating according to this doctrine. By this I mean, there is still an official church authority who can proclaim dogmas, resolve disputes, recognise the canon of scripture, etc, however this church authority must make sure that everything it teaches can be explicitly proven from scripture.

In this way you would have a Christianity which embraces both Sola Scriptura and has an authoritative Magisterium.

Is this what the original reformers were trying to do?

tldr; No - the Reformers disavowed the concept of the Magisterium.

If you read the Wikipedia article on the Magisterial Reformation it is plain to see that the usual usage of the term "Magisterial Reformers" isn't actually related to the concept of a teaching Magisterium:

The Magisterial Reformation is a phrase that "draws attention to the manner in which the Lutheran and Calvinist reformers related to secular authorities, such as princes, magistrates, or city councils", i.e. "the magistracy"...the Magisterial Reformation argued for the interdependence of the church and secular authorities, i.e. "The magistrate had a right to authority within the church, just as the church could rely on the authority of the magistrate to enforce discipline, suppress heresy, or maintain order." [Emphases added]

this is contrasted with the Radical Reformation which:

...rejected any secular authority over the Church

So it's actually about the relationship between Church and State, not about the teaching authority within the Church.
When you further consider some of the relevant views expressed, you can see within them explicit disavowals of the concept of the Magisterium:
Luther

…A simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council without it.… [N]either the Church nor the pope can establish articles of faith. These must come from Scripture. For the sake of Scripture we should reject pope and councils...I am bound, not only to assert, but to defend the truth with my blood and death. I want to believe freely and be a slave to the authority of no one, whether council, university, or pope. I will confidently confess what appears to me to be true, whether it has been asserted by a Catholic or a heretic, whether it has been approved or reproved by a council. - from the 1519 Leipzig disputation with Johanc Eck, source

Calvin

...Calvin binds the authority of the church to the teachings of scripture. Its structures can claim the power of the Spirit only in that the laws they legislate, the doctrines they teach, and the discipline they enact are consistent with scripture. The church's authority is derivative.
Second, the church's authority is fallible. Though God uses human words and agencies to come near to humanity, these means of grace remain finite and sinful. God accomodates to human capacity; God does not eradicate it. The treasure of the gospel is preserved in an earthen vessel. A distinction is maintianed between the church and God. No claim to infallibility can be made on behalf of any office or person in the church's life.
Third, the authority of the church is dispersed. Since Christ alone is the sole head of the church, Calvin is reticent to place exclusive authority in any single agency or office. He rejects the Roman Catholic argument that the papacy serves as a unifying centre of church life, locating authority in the single head of the church universal. Calvin counters on the basis of Ephesians 4, in which church unity is portrayed as residing in Christ alone. As he puts it, "Do you see how he assigns to each member a certain measure, and a definite and limited function, in order that perfection of grace as well as the supreme power of governing may reside with Christ alone?" As the editors of the Institutes point out, there is a consitent tendency towards "plural authorities" in Calvin's discussions of ecclesiastical and political forms of government. Authority and power are best dispersed throughout the church in order to protect the prerogatives that belong to God alone. - A Teachable Spirit: Recovering the Teaching Office in the Church, Richard Robert Osmer ,pp113-114

Given this, I think you'd have to come up with quite a bit more evidence to justify your claims that "he was the only person in Geneva who was permitted to actually study the bible and come to theological conclusions" and "Calvin regarded himself as an alternate, authoritative Magisterium of the church."
Although he came much later, Wesley sums up the Reformers' views in this area rather succinctly:

The Church is to be judged by the Scriptures, not the Scriptures by the Church. - Popery Calmly Considered (1779): The works of the Rev. John Wesley,  via wikiquote, [emphasis added]


To what extent does the Law of Moses still apply? Matthew 5:17-18 (KJV)
  17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

As I understand it, the Law of Moses is fulfilled in Christ. We don't make sacrifices anymore, and many other of the finer points in the Pentateuch are no longer preached.

Yet, I still see people reference these books for doctrine (for example the 10 Commandments).

How much of the Law of Moses still applies?

There are many separate views to the matter. I'll try to list the most common ones, along with sources (at the end of each section). I'll first just describe the views briefly; the sources are available for those more interested.

Catholic

The Catholic Church teaches that the Law of Moses (the Old Law) is a preparation for the Gospel, and as such no longer binding. The New Law (the Law of Gospel) is a perfection of it, given through faith in Christ.

The Law of the Gospel is presented in the Sermon of the Mount (Matthew 5-7), but also in the moral catechesis of the apostolic teachings, such as Romans 12-15, 1 Corinthians 12-13, Colossians 3-4, Ephesians 4-5, etc.

God's Law has always remained the same, and has always been available as the natural moral law (e.g. through conscience), but only Jesus could express it perfectly.

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second edition. Paragraphs 577-582 and 1950-1986. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm

Reformed

The reformed teaching is that the law was given in three parts:

The moral law, which God gave first to Adam, and later to Moses on Sinai (the Ten Commandments).
Ceremonial laws, given to the people of Israel, prefiguring Christ.
Judicial laws, given to the State of Israel.

The moral law is eternal, binding Adam, the first man, as well as any Christian today.  Ceremonial laws were abolished in the New Testament. Judicial laws only concerned the State of Israel.

As noted, the moral law was delivered to Moses as the Ten Commandments. Thus the Ten Commandments apply to Christians today as such. Of other laws in the OT, the moral component applies.

Source: Westminster Confession, chapter XIX. http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XIX.html

Theonomy

Theonomy literally means "God's law". It is the notion that God's law is eternal and universally binding. That is, the entire Bible applies to Christians today.

This doesn't mean that salvation comes by keeping the law, as theonomy is often misrepresented. Salvation is granted "solely by grace through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ".

Psalm 119:97-98 (KJV) is a good verse to show what theonomy is about:

  O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.
  Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me.

Source: Duncan, T.M. Theonomy: What it is; what it is not. http://www.ipc.faithweb.com/documents/THEONOMY.htm

Dispensationalism

Dispensationalism makes a distinction between Israel and the Christian church in God's plan. Its major objective is to be able to interpret the Bible consistently literally.

Dispensationalists recognize seven dispensations in the Bible:

Innocence (Genesis 1:1–3:7)
Conscience (Genesis 3:8–8:22)
Human government (Genesis 9:1–11:32)
Promise (Genesis 12:1–Exodus 19:25)
Law (Exodus 20:1–Acts 2:4)
Grace (Acts 2:4–Revelation 20:3)
The millennial kingdom (Revelation 20:4-6)

The different dispensations are different ways that God has related to people. Salvation has always been through faith.

As today's Christians are living during the dispensation of grace, or during the New Covenant, the old laws or the Old Covenant do not bind them. Because God and His will do not change, the moral law of the New Covenant hasn't notably changed from the Old Covenant.

Source: What is dispensationalism and is it biblical? http://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html (I'd like to find a better/more original source)


What is the basis for the belief among some LDS/Mormons that children in their pre-mortal existence choose who their parents will be? I saw on an LDS-releated site recently where an LDS member indicated the belief that children in their pre-mortal existence choose who their parents will be.  After seeing this, I recalled hearing the same thing many years ago as well.  It seems, then, that this belief is present among at least some LDS members, even if it is not official teaching.

What, then, is the basis of this belief?  Is it official doctrine?  Are there references to this teaching in the D&C or any other Mormon Scripture or reference?

There is no official LDS doctrine on the subject, and the idea that everyone gets to choose where they want to end up makes no sense anyway.  Obviously, some people get born into better circumstances than others, and with people being more likely to want to choose better circumstances than worse ones, clearly there are not enough "good births" to go around, to give everyone what they would ask for.

The idea, insofar as it exists in LDS culture, can probably be traced back to Saturday's Warrior, a musical from the 1970s that became very well-known and popular among Mormons due to its positive message and extremely catchy soundtrack.  Unfortunately, the story told in the show depicts several points related to LDS doctrine--in particular, regarding the pre-existence--that could most charitably be described as "questionable," including showing a family together in the pre-existence as the same family they would be on earth, and showing two other characters together as each other's "one and only" who were destined to be married to each other.

These ideas have no solid foundation in LDS theology, and at least once I've heard a General Authority in General Conference specifically deny the idea of a predestined "one and only" which, in his words, had unfortunately found its way into LDS culture through the influence of "a well-intentioned stage play."  As the answer to the linked question points out, there are some cases in which certain significant people were foreordained to be born to a certain lineage, but there is no doctrine declaring that such is the case for everyone, or even for a significant fraction of everyone.


Do Christians believe that Jews must still follow the Mosaic law? Deuteronomy 13:1-4 states:

All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams--and he give thee a sign or a wonder,

and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee--saying: 'Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them';

thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God putteth you to proof, to know whether ye do love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

The above passage seems to state that one may not subtract commandments from the Law of Moses which the Jewish people were commanded to obey, and  seems to imply that a true prophet will not do so. Do Christians believe that Jews must still obey the Mosaic Law, and if not, how is that consistent with the above passage?

It's a fundamental belief of Christianity that the coming of Jesus fulfils the Old Testament law. In other words that the Law was only ever intended to be until the coming of Messiah. Jesus did not therefore abolish or diminish the law. His coming simply marked the end of its original intended purpose. Jesus says as much in Matthew chapter 5 verse 17.

  “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Because of this Christians believe that nobody should be following the Law, Jews or non-Jews. A better way is available to them, namely following Jesus.

There are a relatively small number of Christians who believe that a way of salvation is open to the Jews who continue to follow the law, instead of Jesus, but it is a minority.


What evidence is there to support Deuteronomy being written during the reign of King Josiah? I was reading an article today, and the author claimed that King Josiah sponsored the writing of Deuteronomy. Here's the exact quote:

  In the seventh century BCE, when the Old Testament’s book of Deuteronomy was written under the sponsorship of King Josiah in Jerusalem, the high bar was set for veneration of the book. Josiah used the scrolls written by his ‘deuteronomists’ to solidify a covenant between the Jewish people and God – and, in an inspired act of political strategy, to legitimise his legacy and claim to the land.

Here's the original article.

What evidence is there, both biblical and extrabiblical, to support the claim that Deuteronomy, the fifth book of the Law, was written during the reign of King Josiah?

That authorship is one of two explanations offered by scholars

Rather than refer to a Christian source, an entry-level explanation of when Deuteronomy  was written can be found at the Jewish Encyclopedia online site.  (The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia).  The authors for this article are: Morris Jastrow, Jr., S. R. Driver, Emil G. Hirsch, Benno Jacob.

The author of the article you read was not making a definitive claim about authorship (his article was about books and book snobs, not about Judaism nor Christianity).  He chose from one of the two options (see below) that scholarship has presented.  Why he chose that is his own affair, but from the style of writing in that article, I'll offer that he made the choice for an artistic reason: it fits into the pattern of behavior he was building about 19th century and modern book snobs.

Note that "JE" in the text below refers to Jewish Encyclopedia.

  Age and Authorship of Deuteronomy.

  (From the Jewish Encyclopedia, see link above)
  It is the unanimous opinion of modern critics that Deuteronomy is not
  the work of Moses, but that it was, in its main parts, written in the
  seventh century B.C., either during the reign of Manasseh, or
  during that of Josiah ...  {emphasis mine}

  The reasons {evidence} for this conclusion, stated here in the briefest outline:

  Even upon the assumption that JE in Exodus and Numbers is
  Mosaic,
  the historical discrepancies in Deut. i-iv. and ix.-x., and the terms
  in which incidents belonging to the fortieth year of the Exodus are
  referred to, preclude the possibility of Deuteronomy being Mosaic
  likewise; while the use of the expression "beyond Jordan" in i. 1, 5;
  iii. 8; iv. 41, 46, 47, 49, for eastern Palestine, implies that the
  author was a resident in western Palestine.
  The same conclusion follows, a fortiori, for those who allow
  that
  JE is a post-Mosaic document, from the fact, noticed above, that JE
  itself, both in the narrative parts and in the laws, is repeatedly
  quoted in Deuteronomy.
  In Deuteronomy it is strictly laid down that sacrifice is to be
  offered at a single central sanctuary (xii. 5, 11, 14, etc.); whereas
  in Joshua to I Kings vi. sacrifices are frequently described as
  offered in various parts of the land (in accordance with the law of
  Ex. xx. 24), without any indication on the part of either the actor or
  the narrator that a law such as that of Deuteronomy is being
  infringed.
  The other differences between the legislation of Deuteronomy and
  that of Ex. xxi.-xxiii. point with some cogency to the conclusion
  that
  the laws of Deuteronomy originated in a later and more highly
  developed stage of society than the laws of Exodus.
  The law of the kingdom (xvii. 14-20) is colored by reminiscences
  of the monarchy of Solomon.
  The forms of idolatry referred to—especially the worship of the
  "host of heaven" (iv. 19, xvii. 7)—point to a date not earlier than
  the reign of Ahaz, and more probably to one in the seventh century
  B.C.

The USCCB's (Conference of Catholic Bishops) on line version of the New American Bible offer this in the introduction to the book of Deuteronomy:

  The book was probably composed over the course of three centuries,
  from the eighth century to the exile and beyond. It bears some
  relation to “the Book of the Law” discovered in the Jerusalem Temple
  around 622 B.C. during the reign of King Josiah (2 Kgs 22:8–13). It
  gives evidence of later editing: cf. the references to exile in
  4:1–40; 28:63–68; 29:21–28; 30:1–10.


Are these verses from Proverbs contradictory? Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will become just like him.  Proverbs 26:4 NIV

Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes..Proverbs 26:5 NIV

Should you? Or, Shouldn't you?

They may be "contradictory" if taken in a literal sense, but proverbs are not really meant to be taken literally--whether those from the Bible, or from any other source.

Consider the definition of a proverb:

  a short popular saying, usually of unknown and ancient origin, that expresses effectively some commonplace truth or useful thought; adage; saw.

As such, each proverb (whether Biblical or otherwise) must be examined on its own, to see what it means.  Proverbs are very poetic, and full of imagery that should not be taken literally.  Take any analogy too far, and you have chaos.  Try to mix two analogies, and really weird things happen.

Consider a modern rendition of a popular chinese proverb:

  I hear and I forget; I see and I remember; I do and I understand.

Is this saying that literally I forget everything I hear, but I remember everything I see?  Of course not. It's speaking in hyperbole to make a point about what is often considered the most effective way of learning something.

Now lets look at your two Biblical proverbs:

  Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will become just like him.

What point is being made here?  If someone does something foolish, doing something foolish in return only makes you like him.  That seems like good advice, and this point stands on its own.

  Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

What point is being made here?  When someone does something foolish, to make him aware of his folly, you must address his folly head-on, otherwise he will think his folly is wisdom.  This also seems like good advice, and stands on its own.

And in fact, both pieces of advice can be applied to the same situation, as long as they are each applied appropriately, and in context.

If someone does something foolish to you, you can address his folly head on, without doing something foolish in return.

So no, they do not contradict each other, unless they are taken out of context, and overly literally.


What does "gates of hell" mean in Matthew 16:18? Matthew 16:18 (KJV):

  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I take it "gates of hell" is a metaphor (there are no literal gates to Hell, are there?), but what is it a metaphor for?

The Greek word is πυλαι and does literally mean "gates", and this is the only reference to the gates of Hades/Hell in the NT. It's also the first use of the word εκκλησια, "the called-out", "church".

The gates of a city are the point at which attackers lay siege, the weakest point. The strength of a city is directly related to the strength or power of its gates. Here Hades or hell is represented as a city with its strength in its gates. The gates represent the power of hell, and the Church is stronger.

Gates also keep people in. Jesus may be referring to his death: Hades could not contain him, and it will not contain the Church either, those who are called out to belong to Christ. The Church will never succumb with the physical death of its members and fail; it will never die.


Is the doctrine of the Trinity the primary difference between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism? Judaism got its root in 1st millennium BC; Islam originated in 7th century AD; Christianity took birth in the 1st century AD. Did doctrinal differences regarding the Trinity necessitate the creation of these entirely new religions, or were there any other reasons?

Modern-day Judaism, which is a different religion compared to Judaism before Christ, is based on the Talmud, which they consider a sacred text at least on the level of the Torah (the 1st 5 books of the Bible). Islam is essentially a heretical sect of Christianity founded by Muhammad, who assembled the Koran from corrupted texts of Christian Holy Scriptures.

Judaism and Islam do not believe Jesus is God; this is a heresy according to Christianity. In addition to this, Judaism and Islam adhere to further errors that show they are false religions:

Christian Perspective on the Errors of Modern-Day, Talmudic Judaism

The cardinal, saint, and Doctor of the Church, Robert Bellarmine, wrote, speaking about the holiness of the Church's doctrine (On the Marks of the Church ch. XI):

  From the Jews that wrote after the coming of Christ, it is manifest from their books. For in the first place, in the doctrine of the Talmud, which is their written word, not God’s, innumerable errors are discovered. Rabbi Solomon, whom the Jews reckon to be the greatest, teaches in his commentary on Genesis on that verse: “This now is bone from my bones,” that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the beasts and wild animals, and he could not satisfy his lust until he at last embraced Eve. The same rabbi, in his commentary on Numbers, in that verse On the first day offering holocausts to the Lord, he selects “the holocaust of the Lord,” and says it is a precept to offer a holocaust on the day of a new moon for the sin of God, which he committed when he diminished the light of the moon. The same Rabbi Solomon tells such a fable in chapter 1 of Genesis, on that verse “Two great lights;” and the same in chapter 4 of Deuteronomy, in that: God created man,” he says Adam was so grown, that he could touch heaven with his head, while he was on earth. Similar things occur everywhere in the books of the Jews.

See also Rev. I. B. Pranaitis's The Talmud Unmasked: The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Christians.

Christian Perspective on Islam's Errors

Discussing why it is not foolishness to assent to the truths of faith, although they are above reason, St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Catholic Church and its greatest theologian, writes, comparing Christianity to Islam (Summa contra Gentiles I cap. 6):

  [3] This wonderful conversion of the world to the Christian faith is the clearest witness of the signs given in the past; so that it is not necessary that they should be further repeated, since they appear most clearly in their effect. For it would be truly more wonderful than all signs if the world had been led by simple and humble men to believe such lofty truths, to accomplish such difficult actions, and to have such high hopes. Yet it is also a fact that, even in our own time, God does not cease to work miracles through His saints for the confirmation of the faith.

  [4] On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this. The point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning, Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be. seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly.

St. Robert wrote (ibid.):

  As to the Muslims, the same is clear from the Qur’an. For it teaches that all are saved by their laws, if they should keep them, be they Jews, Christians or Turks. It also teaches everywhere that the beatitude of the future life consists in food and drink, and a multitude of wives, while no mention is ever made in the whole Qur’an of the vision of spiritual actions, or the love of God. In chapter 43 it says that God and the angels pray for Muhammad. Similar very absurd things are everywhere read in the Qur’an.

So, while Judaism's and Islam's erroneous views on the Trinity are a serious problem, that is not the only falsehood in these sects.


What does James mean when he says that Judging a Brother Equals Judging the Law? James 4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.

How is judging a brother equal to judging the Law? What does this mean?

Then again if 'A' judges 'B' as wrong (this I understand as based on the Law) and speaks evil of 'B', how is 'A' speaking evil of Law?

Is there a logic behind this reasoning?

Speak evil/against/slander means to talk down to others-as in being condescending. This refers to slander out of envy and reflects the work of Satan whose name means slanderer (Rev. 12:10). It breaks God's royal law (Lev. 19:18; Matt. 22:36-40; Rom. 13:8-10; James 2:8), destroys fellowship, and keeps non-believers away from the church. It also devalues those who are also precious in His sight, as slander has no concern for truth or the view from the other side (Ex. 20:16; Psalm 15:3; 50:19-20; Prov. 6:16, 19).

Brothers here means fellow-Jews. At this point, most, if not all the early Christians were Jews. However, the rest of us have been grafted in, so it now also refers to all those in Christ (Rom. 11:17-24).

Judges here refers mostly to slander. Jewish wisdom opposed slander too, and they knew this well! It also refers to condemning the faults in others to cover up our own faults, especially the ones we refuse to see in ourselves. He also is condemning the practice of verbally attacking other, which will only bring condemnation on us (Deut. 19: 16-21; 22:13-19; 1 Sam. 24:9; Psalm 34:13; 50:20; 52:4; 101:5; 109:3; Prov. 10:18; 11:9; Matt. 26:60; Luke 6:45; 1 Cor. 6:10; Eph. 4:31; 1 Tim. 3:11; 5:13; 1 Pet. 2:1, 12; 3:10, 16; 4:4).

Law refers to God's love and care-not to rules and regulations. As God declared His love for Israel, He also does so with us; because He loves us, we can respond in gratitude and keep His precepts. Thus, to slander a fellow-Jew was to place oneself above the law and actually slander God. The same goes to slandering a fellow-Christian-and this certainly does not give license to slander non-Christians!

Do not hide your sin by exposing the sin in others-whether true or false! Gossip and slander do more to damage the church than any fire or false doctrine could ever do! Refuse to compare yourself with others! Remember the need for prayer! Remember the need for love!

James points out how highly presumptuous this attitude is in his next sentence. "He that speaks evil against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law." When we set ourselves up as "the expert" in speaking against another, James says we are actually claiming to be an expert on the very law of God and judging it. Rather than putting ourselves under God’s law along with everyone else, we put ourselves above the law and use it as we see fit to judge others. And once we do this, we are no longer in right relationship with the law or God. Our relationship to God's law is to be people who obey it out of love, trust, and hope in the One who created us and teaches us how we are to live. But we are not trusting in God our Father when we set ourselves up to "know" exactly what is going on with another and so dismiss them with our word of judgment. The only One who truly sees all and knows all and can see into the heart of others is the Lawgiver, "he who is able to save and destroy." Since we do not have ultimate power over life and death, we should be very careful when our words convey "the final word" about another. "But who are you that you judge your neighbor?" James asks his readers.


What are the differences between the spirit of God and spirit of Man? First, I thought that the spirit Christians get from God is the same as the spirit of God. Recently, I heard a sermon that asserted they are different, but gave no more details.  Which verses describe this in the Bible?

When we get the Holy Spirit are we getting the spirit of God?

It helps to first know what the word "Spirit" actually means, which is more of a question for the Hermeneutics site.  I do see you've been asking questions about the meaning of the word there, so I'll include a brief bit here as introduction.

From http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/soul-and-spirit.htm

  In the New Testament the word for "spirit" is pneuma. Pneuma is
  translated the following ways:

  ghost 2
  Ghost (with Holy) 90
  life 1
  spirit 151
  Spirit 137
  spiritual gift 1
  spiritually 1
  wind 1

The entire article is very long, but it does a good job of illustrating how a simple word can be interpreted different ways based on the context of the verse.

The word "Spirit" can carry the more religious/supernatural connotation associated with the word today, or it can simply mean "life" or "the breath of life". Quite commonly it is used as a literary form of personification:

  One brief thought before we look at the verses: There are some verses
  that seem to use "soul" and "spirit" in ways that harmonize with the
  common concept of the nature of man. How can this be? Is the Bible
  contradicting itself?

  Here is one suggestion: It was commonplace for the Bible writers to
  take parts of man’s being and personify them, give them attributes
  they did not in actuality possess. Perhaps sometimes they personified
  the "soul" and "spirit" as well.

  The most familiar example of a part of a person being personified is
  the heart. The heart, simply an organ that pumps blood, is said to
  have qualities that the mind does have, but that the heart definitely
  does not have.

  Another example which is not so familiar is the personification of the
  kidneys, called the "reins" (Ps. 7:9; 16:7; 26:2; 73:21; Prov. 23:16;
  Jer. 11:20; 12:2; 17:10; 20:12; Rev. 2:23). The kidneys seem to have
  been made the seat of the affections and emotions.

  Another example is the use of the words for "bowels" (Ps. 40:8
  (translated "heart"); Cant. 5:4; Is. 16:11; 63:15; Jer. 4:19; 31:20;
  Lam. 1:20; 2:11; Luke 1:78 (translated "tender"); 2 Cor 7:15
  (translated "inward affection"); Php. 2:1; Col. 3:12; Phm. 1:7, 20; 1
  Jn. 3:17).

  In the light of these scriptures, the possibility that the Bible
  writers also occasionally personify the "soul" and "spirit" should be
  considered. In other words, the "soul" and the "spirit" may in some
  verses be given qualities that they do not in actuality possess.

The article shows the various verses in which the word "Spirit" is used.  I'll include just a few:

  "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
  into his nostrils the breath (neshamah, pnoe) of life; and man became
  a living soul" (Gen. 2:7). [God put the "spirit" into Adam's nose.]

  "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to
  destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath (ruach, pneuma) of life, from
  under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die" (Gen.
  6:17). [Animals have the "spirit" in them too.]

  "All the while my breath (neshamah, pnoe) is in me, and the spirit
  (ruach, pneuma) of God is in my nostrils" (Job 27:3). [The "spirit"
  lives in the nose.]

  "The Spirit (neshamah, pnoe) of God hath made me, and the breath
  (ruach, pneuma) of the Almighty hath given me life" (Job 33:4). [God's
  "spirit" gives us life.]

I'm assuming your question deals with verses like the last two shown above.  In the context, and general meaning.

Job 27:3 has been translates several ways by scholars, in the various versions of the Bible.  Examples:

  GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) 'As long as there is one breath [left] in me and God's breath fills my nostrils,

  American King James Version All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils;

Both of these clearly indicate that the Spirit of God is distinct from the breath of life (spirit of man).  It indicates that man has a spirit in him, given to him by God, not that the spirit in him is the same spirit that God possesses.

The spirit that God gives may be from God, but the connotation of the word "spirit" when it comes to man is simply life itself.  We each have our own life - our own spirit - our own ?breath that gives us life" that is certainly a gift from God, but is not the same as God's spirit.

It's also completely different than the Holy Spirit, which is the third person of God in the Trinity and, according to most traditions, indwells us at the point of, and remains in us after salvation.


Do OT scriptures clearly indicate sacrifices will be replaced? The author of Hebrews builds the case that the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus has replaced the OT system of animal sacrifices. Are there any OT scriptures that clearly indicate the Jewish system of sacrifices would eventually be replaced? There is the Jeremiah 31 passage quoted in Hebrews, but other than that the author doesn't seem to state, "This scripture says sacrifices will one day be replaced, and Jesus did that on the cross."

The writer to the Hebrews [Heb 1:1,2] makes it clear that the very repetition of the sacrifices, themselves, is proof of the fact that they are not effectual. And the only reason for their repetition could only be an intelligent expectation that something better would arise.

For the law […] can never with those sacrifices which they offered […] make the comers thereto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered ? [KJV]
[…] because that the worshippers, once purged, should have had no more conscience of sins.
But in those [is] a remembrance again of sins every year.

As with any repetitive ritual, some will be content, thoughtlessly, to continue with a habit thinking that a mere performance will be effective spiritually. And it is clear that many of old were so contented with the outward representation - and looked no further.
But to the intelligent worshipper it was evident, in the very repetition, that this was but a means to an end, but an herald of a reality yet to be revealed.
Until that revelation, there could only be the representation. The prophets speak in many places, in many ways, of that which was promised. But I can only think of one definite prophecy that is relevant to this particular question, which is Daniel 9:27 :

[…] shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease,

but it is a mysterious prophecy and I would not wish to venture to say more about it.


I'm looking for an obscure version of John 4:32 Many years ago, I read, heard, or saw the latter half of John 4:32 as follows:

  "I have meat you/ye know not of,"

but now, I can't find it written that way anywhere.

On BibleGateway, the end of the verse (the part in question, in other words), in most versions, looks basically like this (the KJV):

  I have meat to eat that ye know not of.

Some versions/translations say "food," and some of them end differently, but what I'm looking for is one that doesn't say, "to eat that" after "meat/food." That's what I haven't been able to find.

I remember being so touched by the brevity of the shorter, more direct version. So, I'm sure I'm not mistaken that I heard it the way I think I did because I wouldn't have carried the impression I have all this time if I hadn't.

So, there are three possibilities regarding the shorter version:

I simply heard a preacher say it that way one day in the past (and there's nothing more to be done),
There really is a Bible translation out there somewhere with it written this way (and hopefully someone on here can help me find it), or
I saw it on one of some hundred different Bible movies on television (and, again, hopefully someone on here can help me find that movie).

Thank you for your help.

Using the YouVersion Bible App (which contains approx. 300 versions, although I don't believe these are all English versions) it is possible to do a pretty quick and easy cursory search of a particular verse.  I did so, and although I haven't completed every version, I found the New Living Translation states John 4:32 thusly:

  But Jesus replied I have a kind of food you know nothing about.

Although this is not the quote that you are looking for, to me it puts you on the right track since the NLT is translated from the original text (at least that is what is stated on the web site).

I also found the Bible in Basic English: John 4:32:

  But he said to them, I have food of which you have no knowledge.

I also tried "Google Translate" from the Greek which didn't help at all.  A function of the reliability of Google...which in my opinion and has no place here.

There is another website that has an English/Greek parallel comparison. This shows that the portion of the translation, "to eat," is probably superfluous as Andrew Leach stated.  I would agree.

It would seem to me that the translation you are looking for is probably out there somewhere.  I would ask how long has it been since you last read this passage in the format that you are seeking?  It might be that it is no longer in popular usage.  (Which, of course, might be an assumption that would make one say "that's a cop-out".)

I'm sorry I was unable to find the exact translation for you.


What is the difference between "love" and "worship"? Do "love God" and "worship God" mean the same thing? I've never quite understood the concept of worship and how it differs from the concept of love. Are worship and love the same thing? Or is worship = love + something else? If someone loves God, does that automatically imply that they worship God or vice versa? I would appreciate it if answers include illustrative examples of how these concepts materialize in a concrete way in everyday Christian living.

C.S. Lewis had trouble with the idea of praise and worship, as if God were continually seeking compliments from us. He warmed up to the idea slowly. See this:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/c-s-lewis-on-the-theology-and-practice-of-worship/
One essential aspect of worship is that it is two-way. In praising God through our worship, he imparts his presence and his communicable attributes to us. Like a seal pressed into wax, we waxy people begin to be reshaped into the likeness of the seal. Worship brings wax and seal together. Or God is the light which shines upon us. Our praise lets the light in and we are warmed and energized and made radiant. After Moses met with God, he face literally glowed.
Worship is the treasuring of that which is true treasure, not the junk we store in attics and closets. The act of treasuring the eternal brings the eternal into us and transforms us.
If you read 1 Corinthians 13, the definition of love will confuse you, because love seems to swallow up all the other virtues under its umbrella. Notice how that chapter has negative things to say about some approaches to obedience. Love is not so much the things done as the reason they are done: for the benefit of others, not our own aggrandizement. Thus worship is not love, but love distinguishes acceptable worship from fear, manipulation and bargaining for a benefit.


What order were the Pauline epistles written, according to evangelical critical scholarship? I am unaware whether this is a hotly contested issue or not, but if it is, I would be looking for the majority opinion among evangelical scholars, that is, scholars who affirm Pauline authorship, inerrancy, and the various other doctrines that make a scholar an evangelical.

Both "majority opinion" and "evangelical" (even with the guidelines you supplied) are slippery terms. They'll probably always be in a state of flux, so it's difficult to supply exactly what you've asked for. But don't panic. I think a relatively clear picture can still emerge.

I've decided to give a sampling of three scholars who I think are firmly within the evangelical camp: Dan Wallace, J. Hampton Keathley III, and Luke Timothy Johnson. For Wallace and Keathley I found dates, but for Johnson I was only able to find an order. Note that Johnson groups together 1-2 Corinthians, 1-2 Thessalonians, and the Pastorals as one unit each.

+-----------------+----------+---------+---------+
|                 | Keathley | Wallace | Johnson |
+-----------------+----------+---------+---------+
| Romans          | 57-58    | 56-57   |       4 |
| 1 Corinthians   | 55       | spr 54  |       2 |
| 2 Corinthians   | 56       | fall 55 |       2 |
| Galatians       | 49 or 55 | fall 48 |       3 |
| Ephesians       | 60-61    | c 60    |       8 |
| Philippians     | 60-61    | c 60    |       5 |
| Colossians      | 61       | c 60    |       7 |
| 1 Thessalonians | 51-52    | spr 50  |       1 |
| 2 Thessalonians | 51-52    | sum 50  |       1 |
| 1 Timothy       | 63-66    | 63      |       9 |
| 2 Timothy       | 67       | 64      |       9 |
| Titus           | 62-67    | 63      |       9 |
| Philemon        | 61       | c 60    |       6 |
+-----------------+----------+---------+---------+

Table formatting provided by Senseful Solutions.

If we consider the same units Johnson does and add the Prison Letters (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon), then we have exactly 6 "units" or "chunks" of letters that need ordering: Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Prison Letters, 1-2 Thessalonians, Pastorals. Using that schema, here's the above table simplified:

+----------------+----------+---------+---------+
|                | Keathley | Wallace | Johnson |
+----------------+----------+---------+---------+
| Romans         | 3        |       4 |       4 |
| Corinthians    | 4        |       3 |       2 |
| Galatians      | 1 or 2   |       1 |       3 |
| Prison Letters | 5        |       5 |       5 |
| Thessalonians  | 1 or 2   |       2 |       1 |
| Pastorals      | 6        |       6 |       6 |
+----------------+----------+---------+---------+

From here, as promised, a clear picture emerges. The consensus is that the Thessalonian letters were the first or second written, Galatians was also early, Romans was written third or fourth, the Prison Letters were later, and the Pastorals last (shortly before the end of his life). The only major point of disagreement is where the Corinthian letters fit in, which is a very complex question as you can read in Wallace (look for the phrase "special problem").


Where did the hierarchical designations of priest, cardinal, bishop, and pope come from in the Catholic church? Protestantism typically recognizes offices that include pastors, elders, and deacons.  Another common belief is the priesthood of all believers, and thus there is no such designation for a particular office.

Catholicism, by contrast, has priests, cardinals, bishops, and popes.  Where did these designations come from and when did each of them arise?  I know that the word "priest" does appear in the New Testament, but I am unaware of any words from which cardinal, bishop, or pope would be derived.

(I wonder if for the first few centuries, there were only priests and a pope and then over time other offices could have been added.  This is just speculation, though, as I am not too familiar with Catholic history.)

Actually cardinals, bishops and pope, all hold one and the same degree of Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. All of them are bishops.

Pope: Bishop of Rome is called Pope. As the bishop of Rome he is considered to be first amongst equals.Supremacy of Popes Pope just means Father/Papa

Cardinals: They are special bishopssee note 1 chosen by the Pope to help him in his work. Most important work of a cardinal is to chose the next pope. Contrary to popular belief, Cardinals are not the bosses of other bishops, as the Pope is not the boss of all Catholics. Catholics believe that a Bishop receives his authority from God not from pope. To be more specific Cardinal is NOT ecclesiastical posts. That is, Unlike a bishop when elevated as a Cardinal one does not gain any special spiritual privileges. The word Cardinal is based on the Latin cardo (hinge), meaning "principal" or "chief". The term was applied in this sense as early as the ninth century to the important priests of the diocese of Rome. Still today all cardinals are given charge of a Church in Rome.

Now the difference between a bishop and a priest, can be understood in terms of Jewish Priesthood. Bishops are a special type of priests called High Priests, just like in a Jewish tradition. Catholics do believe in the priesthood of all believers. The Catholic Church believes in three different types of priestsref:

The priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5–9);
The ordained priesthood (Acts 14:23, Romans 15:16, Titus 1:5); and
The high priesthood of Jesus (Hebrews 3:1).

Catholic Encyclopedia explains the hierarchical position of the presbyterate as follows:

  The relation of the priest to the bishop and deacon may be briefly explained by stating that he is, as it were, the middle term between the two, being hierarchically the subordinate of the bishop and the superior of the deacon (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXVI, can. vi). While the pre-eminence of the bishop over the priest consists mainly in his power of ordination, that of the priest over the deacon is based on his power of consecrating and absolving (cf. Council of Trent, loc. cit., cap. iv; can. i and vii).ref

Notes:

There have been lay cardinals in the past, and some cardinals have chose not to get consecrated as bishop due to their old age.
The point I want to make clear is that the difference is only in the name for cardinals, bishops and popes. Of-course they have different temporal powers suitable to their rank, but nothing spiritual.


What does the Catholic Church say happens on the New Earth? There is a tiny blurb in my text book saying that

  Even the earth will be transformed in some way

referencing revelation 21:1-3 which it goes on to quote, but not actually explain.

So what happens on a new earth? Does it stay on the new earth, is that where folks who live through the second coming hang out until they ascend into heaven?

Creation will be renewed one day, freed from corruption and illumined by God’s glory. - (RSVCE) note for Rev 21:1.

New Advent says the following on the new heaven and the new earth:

[For the the elect], after the last judgment the new heaven and the new earth will afford them manifold enjoyment ... [and] accidental beatitude will receive some increase from the union of soul and body, and from the sight of the new heaven and the earth. cf. [ Heaven | New Advent].
Results of the General Judgment | New Advent:

  With the fulfilment of the sentence pronounced in the last judgment
  the relations and the dealings of the Creator with the creature find
  their culmination, are explained and justified. The Divine purpose
  being accomplished, the human race will, as a consequence, attain its
  final destiny. The reign of Christ over mankind will be the sequel of
  the General Judgment.

Against Heresies (St. Irenaeus) > Book V, Chapter 36 | New Advent:

Men shall be actually raised.
The world shall not be annihilated; but there shall be various mansions for the saints, according to the rank allotted to each individual.
All things shall be subject to God the Father, and so shall He be all in all.
But when this present fashion of things passes away, and man has been renewed, and flourishes in an incorruptible state, so as to preclude the possibility of becoming old, then there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, in which the new man shall remain continually, always holding fresh converse with God.
Then those who are deemed worthy of an abode in heaven shall go there, others shall enjoy the delights of paradise, and others shall possess the splendour of the city; for everywhere the Saviour shall be seen according as they who see Him shall be worthy.
The just will be resurrected and inherit the kingdom of the earth.
The creation shall be free from the bondage of corruption, so as to pass into the liberty of the sons of God.
And God the Father bestowing in a paternal manner those things which neither the eye has seen, nor the ear has heard, nor has thought concerning them arisen within the heart of man.

Please see also:

Section VI. in the Catechism of the Catholic Church The Hope of the New Heaven and the New Earth, CCC 1042-1050.
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium Et Spes, 39, Promulgated By His Holiness, Pope Paul VI On December 7, 1965:

  We do not know the time for the consummation of the earth and of humanity,1 nor do we know how all things will be
  transformed. As deformed by sin, the shape of this world will pass
  away;2 but we are taught that God is preparing a new
  dwelling place and a new earth where justice will abide,3
  and whose blessedness will answer and surpass all the longings for
  peace which spring up in the human heart.4 Then, with death
  overcome, the sons of God will be raised up in Christ, and what was
  sown in weakness and corruption will be invested with
  incorruptibility.5 Enduring with charity and its
  fruits,6 all that creation7 which God made on
  man's account will be unchained from the bondage of vanity.

  1. Cf. Acts 1:7.
  2. Cf. 1 Cor. 7:31; St. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, V, 36, PG,
  VIII, 1221.
  3. Cf. 2 Cor. 5:2; 2 Pet. 3:13.
  4. Cf. 1 Cor. 2:9; Apoc. 21:4-5.
  5. Cf. 1 Cor. 15:42 and 53.
  6. Cf. 1 Cor. 13:8; 3:14.
  7. Cf. Rom. 8:19-21.


How is Lutheran apostolic succession conferred? I noticed in a comment that Lutherans have apostolic succession I figured this was a purely Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox thing is there a comparable Sacrament of Holy Orders in the Lutheran world?

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America embraces apostolic succession.  This has been true since Called to Common Mission, an agreement of full communion with the Episcopal Church of the USA, took effect a decade ago. When our bishops are installed (only pastors are ordained) a bishop who holds apostolic succession (often an Episcopal bishop) is present.

Agreeing to this was not simple, because North American Lutherans have long rejected it. But the churchwide assembly accepted the argument that full communion was more important than staying divided from the Episcopalians over this.


Does transubstantiation teach that the Son regularly returns physically? Is Catholicism's accidents and species/transubstantiation teaching that the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, returned or regularly returns physically, with a second, mute, nonhuman, physical appearance? (Rather than that He incarnates again, often, as bread and wine?)
And relatedly: what would Catholicism say is the point of such a phenomenon? (Or would it say simply that it is?)

He can't "incarnate again" because His sacred humanity and divinity cannot be separated since when He assumed flesh in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mother Mary.
Council of Toledo (685 A.D.), Denzinger 283:

In this Son of God we believe there are two natures, one of divinity, the other of humanity, which the one person of Christ so united in Himself that the divinity can never be separated from the humanity, nor the humanity from the divinity.In quo Dei Filio duas credimus esse naturas; unam divinitatis, alteram humanitatis, quas ita in se una Christi persona univit, ut nec divinitas ab humanitate, nec humanitas a divinitate possit aliquando seiungi.

cf. pt. 2, ch. 1, §3, "Thesis II: The Logos never even for an instant dissociated Himself from His manhood." of Christology: A Dogmatic Treatise on the Incarnation by Pohle

Christ is present after consecration not as though He departed from heaven and returned to earth but "after the manner of substance" (secundum modum substantiæ).


According to the Catholic Church, does the spiritual sense of scripture change with the times? A friend wrote this to me on Facebook, and had me a bit puzzled how to respond:

A law does not exist in order to be understood historically, but to be concretized in its legal validity by being interpreted. Similarly, the Gospel does not exist in order to be understood as a merely historical document, but to be taken in such a way that it exercises its saving effect. This implies that the text, whether law or Gospel, if it is to be understood properly—i.e., according to the claim it makes—must be understood at every moment, in every concrete situation, in a new and different way. Understanding here is always application.
—Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, 307-308.

I don't know much about this particular German philosopher, but I've read enough Chesterton to be skeptical.  It seems to me that he's saying that the saving part, so at least the moral and anagogical (if not the allegorical) senses of scripture are fluid.
Is his theological axiom, which I summarize as:
Things that can be true and good according to an application of the spiritual truths revealed in the Gospel are true and good now, but, given that same application, weren't true or good in a different place or time consistent with Catholic teaching?

I am not a philosopher; nor am I familiar with Gadamer. Nonetheless, this excerpt from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy may help clarify Gadamer's meaning:

As Gadamer comments in Truth and Method, ‘application is neither a subsequent nor merely an occasional part of the phenomenon of understanding, but co-determines it as a whole from the beginning’ (Gadamer 1989b, 324). Theory and application do not occur, then, in separation from one another, but are part of a single hermeneutical ‘practice’.

Perhaps we could apply this teaching in an orthodox manner to Biblical interpretation by stating that the Bible must both illumine the intellect and guide our behavior in concrete situations. Nevertheless, to avoid a descent into subjectivity, we must bear in mind the teachings of the First Vatican Council.

For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.


We can't say for sure when angels were created, but can we even say if angels were created at all? So over the summer I was on a mission trip and was thinking of angels protecting us while we were in some sketch situations, then later I began to ask myself where in the Bible does it say angels were created? The only evidence I have found is in Colossians 1:16&17..but then in John 1:3 it says "all things were made by him, and without him there was nothing made that was made". The end of the verse seems to imply that there are things that were not made. Am I misinterpreting that?

Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of
  heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are
  therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them
  all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

  Nehemiah 9:6

Also

  Praise ye the Lord. Praise ye the Lord from the heavens: praise him in
  the heights.

  Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.

  Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.

  Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the
  heavens.

  Let them praise the name of the Lord: for he commanded, and they were created.

  Psalm 148:1-5

And lastly, but probably the best answer:

  For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth,
  visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or
  authorities—all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is
  before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

  Colossians 1:16-17

Also about John 1:3 it is explaining that Jesus has always been there and that He is the Creator. All things were made by Him, and if He hadn't been there nothing would've been created.


Can Prince Harry marry his fiancée by the Church of England's precepts? Prince Harry, from the British Royal family, is to marry his fiancée. The communicate was:

According to several newspapers (e.g. here),

  A royal source said it would be “a happy church wedding”

There is no other official source about the type of wedding, but it is reasonable to be in a ceremony by the Church of England (untimately, his grandmother is the head of the Church of England).

Importantly, there is speculation/commentary in the media that Harry's fiancee is Roman Catholic.

If the latter is true, and as things stand, is it possible within the Church of England's precepts for Harry to marry his fiancée in a religious ceremony, receiving the Anglican sacrament of matrimony?

I am curious because, as far as I understand, if the reverse were true (i.e. Harry being Roman Catholic and his fiancée being Anglican, marrying in a Catholic church), such sacramental marriage is not possible.

The original question was whether a member of the C of E can marry a Roman Catholic in an Anglican ceremony, in a C of E church, according to C of E precepts. As it transpires Meghan is not RC so the example is irrelevant to the basic question. Purely according to C of E rules, so ignoring any RC precepts, the answer is yes. A Protestant and a Roman Catholic can marry in the C of E, however this does not depend on any inter-faith agreement. It is a corollary of the fact that anbody can mary in the Church of England.  It is not necessary for either the bride or groom to be Christians of any kind.

There are Christian prayers, said by the vicar, but a Hindu can marry a Muslim, if they wish, in the C of E. A couple can choose to be married in the parish where either of them lives, or has previously lived, or where they have some other qualifying connection.

The right to marry in church is related to the role of the C of E as national church.

There are some exceptions, where a couple can marry according to civil law, but where a vicar is not obliged to marry them, though he has the legal power to do so if he chooses. One example was introduced by the Deceased Wife's Sister Act, 1907, which changed the law to allow a widower to marry his sister in law, but gave clergy the right not to officiate. By far the most common exception though is in the case of divorcees. A vicar has the civil power to marry divorcees, the civil right to refuse to do so, and the ecclesiastical expectation to do so only in exceptional cases.

Some clergy will simply refuse unless the couple are regular church members, in which case they may wish to ensure the divorcee understands what went wrong, was the innocent party, and understands and intends to make the appropriate commitments. Others are very accomodating.

There is a concept known as the Pauline Privilege which is based on 1 Corinthians 7 15, where Paul says that in the case where an unbelieving spouse leaves a believing spouse the believing spouse is free to remarry. In Roman Catholic canon law a person newly baptised, who married prior to baptism,  and whose spouse has left, is free to remarry. The C of E has no such legalistic application, but it is a factor which may be taken into account, at the discretion of the vicar.

When Princess Anne remarried she did so in the Church of Scotland,  which is less restrictive. Prince Charles and the Duchesss of Cornwall married in a civil ceremony, followed by a church blessing.  Although this would have been discussed at the highest level (ie his Mum, the Archbishops and Commonwealth leaders) the reasons were confidential. Prince Charles was no longer a divorcee but, technically,  a widower but Camilla had made very definite commitments in a sacramental context to her former husband. Furthermore it is possible their divorce was a result of the relationship with Charles. With Meghan's previous marriage it would not be difficult to argue that her previous marriage was not intended to be the lifelong commitment which the Church understands marriage to entail. She was not baptised, her ex-husband is Jewish,  although, as the marriage took place at a beach resort in Jamaica it was under the auspices of the Queen of Jamaica, aka the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, or Harry's Granny.

In recent years same-sex marriage has been introduced in England,  but no vicar or other minister of the C of E can officiate. This will not, of course, be a problem for Harry and Meghan.

Until 2015, if Prince Harry had married a Roman Catholic he would have lost his place in the succession.Of course, it is still the case that if any children were brought up Catholic they could never be monarch. The change follows a similar change in Sweden in 2000.

A final complication is that the Queen can veto any of the top six in the succession from marrying for dynastic purposes. If she did veto then the marriage can go ahead, but any children would be inelligible to become king or queen. Harry is currently fifth, behid his father, brother, nephew and niece. Happily Her Majesty shows no intention of objecting.


Why did the high priests try Jesus on charges of Blasphemy if He fulfilled their prophecy? Why did the Jewish high priests deny Jesus if He was fulfilling their scriptures?

It seems as if they viewed Him as nothing to do with their God.

What are some reasons from the perspective of the high priests that they refused to accept Jesus?

The Jewish priests expected the Messiah to come in like a Lion with great fanfare and overwhelming military might for subduing the enemies of Israel.  They did not expect the Messiah to be born in humble circumstances or to grow up as a common craftsman.

Jesus threatened the authority and the lifestyle that the priests had grown accustomed to, as they grew very rich while helping the Roman authorities to maintain control over Israelite-controlles towns.  Several times in the Gospels (Mat 23:1-4, Luke 11:37-44), Jesus directly rebukes the priests on multiple issues.

  ... the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law. Matthew 7:28-29

Many people were putting their trust in the teachings of Jesus instead of the priests.

It must have been difficult for the Jewish Priests to consider that the promised Messiah would come as a threat to themselves, God's representatives to His own people. They viewed him as being opposed to the established authority that controlled the Temple and the People, which would likely seem contrary to what they might expect from the long-awaited Messiah.


In 1 Corinthians 8:5, what do the "many gods and many lords" refer to? In 1 Corinthians 8:5–6, we read:

  5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God (ESV)

I'm having a hard time with in one breath we see "one God" and then the former "many gods and many lords."  What is an overview of how should we understand "many gods and many lords" here?

There are actually two similar ways that this passage is interpreted:

That the "gods" and "lords" are the completely imaginary gods of the heathen
That the "gods" and "lords" are supernatural beings that do exist, but are not divine

Many commentators don't attempt to draw a distinction between these two, like George Leo Haydock (a Roman Catholic), who writes that these "gods" and "lords" are simply "reputed for such among the heathens."

Adam Clarke, a Methodist, prefers the first view.  He writes:

  There are many images that are supposed to be representations of divinities: but these divinities are nothing, the figments of mere fancy; and these images have no corresponding realities.

On the other hand, Charles Hodge, a Reformed Protestant, prefers the second view, in light of passages like 1 Corinthians 10:20:

  I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. (ESV)

Either way, however, we can say with Hodge that Paul's purpose here is to say that

the heathen gods, as the heathen understand them, do not exist, and
the supernatural beings (angels and demons) that do exist and are called "gods" are not divine at all: they are creatures, created by the one true God.


How do small groups pray the Liturgy of the Hours? At my troop's Federation of North American Explorers meetings, the leaders and the boys pray the Liturgy of the Hours together sometimes for our prayer at the end of meetings.  We often do it with half the group on one side of the altar and half on the other trading verses.

Is this the expected format when doing "call and response" in the Liturgy of the Hours for Evening Prayer?  Generally speaking, I would like to know what a little of what seminarians are taught in their formation.

One side says "God come to my assistance", the other says "Lord Make haste to help me.
One side says "Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit" The other says "As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be"
We sing a hymn together
One side says the Antiphon, the other side repeats the Antiphon
The psalms and canticles we split every 2 lines or so,
Another "Glory Be" as above, then
Repeat the Antiphon as above.
same for the next two psalms (unless otherwise noted)
One lucky boy reads the reading. He doesn't say "A reading from the Letter of St. James" nor does he conclude with "The word of the Lord".
The responsory is read verbatim
The Magnificat is read with antiphons the same way as the Psalms.
We all say the Our Father together.
One lucky boy says the closing prayer.
The conclusion is sung call-and-response style.

So, I'm guessing that's partly made up, and partly right.  I'd like it to be 100% right, so please let me know where I'm wrong!

The format you have specified looks correct, but we follow a slightly different format:

In the absence of a priest or deacon, it is recommended to have one person who presides the office. It is to be noted that he is only one among equals and he does not greet and bless the people. (GILoH 258)
The one who Presides says the opening versicle (God come to my assistance) and the whole group responds.
The one who Presides says (the first) glory be and the whole group responds.
The invitatory psalm alone is recited differently than other psalms.
A single individual recites the antiphon, the whole group repeats the antiphon. Then the invitatory psalm (Ps 95, Ps 100, Ps 67, or Ps 24) is recited by that individual and at the end of each para the group responds with the antiphon. At the end of the whole psalm the individual says glory be fully. (That is the usual second part as it was in the beginning is also recited by the same individual) for which the whole group responds with the antiphon.
Regarding the the Antiphon, the presider say the first few words of the antiphon, the rest of the group joins in saying the Antiphon.
The responsory is supposed to be led by the one who presides.
Each intention consists of two parts; First part can be read by one side and the second by another.
Just like the hymn, gospel canticles (i.e the Magnificat) is said together.
The one who Presides should say the closing prayer.
Also don't forget the gestures:

Make the sign of the cross, from forehead to breast and from left shoulder to right, at the beginning of the hours, when God, come to my assistance is being said; the beginning of the Canticles of Zechariah, of Mary, and of Simeon. The sign of the cross is made on the mouth at the beginning of the invitatory, at Lord, open my lips.
All taking part stand during: the introduction to the office and the introductory verses of each hour; the hymn; the gospel canticle; the intercessions, the Lord's Prayer, and the concluding prayer.
All sit to listen to the readings, except the gospel.
The assembly either sits or stands, depending on custom, while the psalms and other canticles (with their antiphons) are being said.

[Don't forget to read the General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours]


Did this phrase "love the sinner but hate the sin" in this form originate in Christianity and who is credited to have first used it? This article "Are we to love the sinner but hate the sin?" | gotquestions.org says:

  Many Christians use the cliché “Love the sinner; hate the sin.”

This C.SE question Is “hate the sin, love the sinner” a Christian idea? tackled, to my understanding, whether the phrase is biblical and tagged love, sin and hate.

Hence my question:

Did this phrase "love the sinner but hate the sin" in this form originate in Christianity and who is credited to have first used it?

Augustine of Hippo is basically universally credited with the coinage of the phrase. It is an idea which can easily be supported by the Bible, but he was the first to say it in a form close to its present proverbial form. He probably didn't think he was coining a cliche, since it was neatly hidden away in a letter to a convent. This blog has a summary of the circumstances:

  Let’s establish this point from the outset: St. Augustine more or less
  coined the phrase “love the sinner but hate the sin” as a description
  of how Christians should behave in the church discipline process. He’s
  (apparently) talking about about those man-chasing “cougar” nuns that
  like to flirt with men and can’t keep their naughty bits covered. It’s
  hard to believe that this was a serious problem in 424AD, but – in
  respect of his sainthood and all that – we’ll give St. Augustine the
  benefit of the doubt.

  In an attempt to better describe the love and wrath of God, the modern
  Christian cliche “love the sinner, hate the sin” has emerged in an
  attempt to capture the often-perplexing paradox of how God can
  simultaneously demonstrate wrath and love for mankind. There are hints
  of Biblical truth within the cliche. In His perfect holiness and
  justice, God is opposed to the open rebellion of sin (Romans 1:18-32).
  Yet, God loved us while we were still sinners and the enemies of God,
  and sent His only Son, Jesus Christ, to pay the price for our sin
  (John 3:16; 1 John 4:7-21).

The full text of the letter can be found here. Augustine opens it by saying:

  As severity [i.e. hatred of sin] is ready to punish the faults which
  it may discover, so charity [i.e. love of the sinner] is reluctant
  to discover the faults which it must punish.

And later he says:

  Moreover, what I have now said in regard to abstaining from wanton
  looks should be carefully observed, with due love for the persons
  and hatred of the sin (cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum),
  in observing, forbidding, reporting, proving, and punishing of all
  other faults.

Cliches and proverbs always evolve and mutate. We see in Augustine the pithiness and the exact idea expressed in the cliche. But nobody seems to know exactly how or when it entered English in its exact present form. On the English Stack Exchange one answer notes that it seems to have coalesced and "started appearing everywhere" in the 1820s. Others have found other mentions in the 18th century.

For example, in 1729, the hymnist Isaac Watts wrote in an essay, "[Jesus] hated even the least sin, but loved and saved the greatest of sinners." Similarly, in 1784, William Mason wrote in his commentary on The Pilgrim's Progress, "[God] can love the sinner, as much as he loaths his sin." And the 1779 Charles Wesley hymn Equip Me for the War says, "O may I learn the art / With meekness to reprove; / To hate the sin with all my heart, / But still the sinner love." Internet sources indicate that the idea became more well-known when Gandhi referenced it in his 1927 autobiography: "'Hate the sin and not the sinner' is a precept which, though easy enough to understand, is rarely practiced, and that is why the poison of hatred spreads in the world."

In summary, it was first said by Augustine, echoed (coincidentally or not) by Christian writers in English in the 1700s, and it became a proverb in the 1820s for whatever reason. Then in 1927 it became even more popular when Gandhi used it.