What does Ravi Zacharias mean when he says "Intent is always prior to content"? I am a constant listener to Ravi's Podcasts and he always says "Intent is always prior to content." What does that mean?

Thanks

Ravi Zacharias is a renown apologist for the Christian faith.  I, too, enjoy listening to him.  His account of his interview with the Grand Mufti of the Islam faith, which he describes as perhaps the most tension-fraught interview he has ever conducted, is unforgettable.

Since Mr. Zacharias is an astute apologist, I am guessing that his phrase "Intent is always prior to content" is a good "mantra" for anyone aspiring to be an apologist and a witness for Christ.  Before one opens his or her mouth in defense of the faith, a good question to ask oneself is,

  "Now, why am I about to defend the faith?  Is my intent to make myself look good by out-arguing the person with whom I am engaged in conversation, or is my intent first, to build a bridge of communication with my interlocutor, and second, to bear witness to the truth in Christ Jesus, but in a spirit of love, gentleness, and godly fear?"

If your intent is the former, then you should probably not open your mouth; you'll do more harm than good.  If on the other hand you are genuinely interested in hearing the person out, responding appropriately in a Spirit-led way, and all the while being in an attitude of prayer and dependence on God, then you are probably in a position to accomplish something for God.

Remember, our task is not to make ourselves look good, but to make our Savior look good.  Moreover, achieving eloquence and thus acquitting ourselves in a prideful way must never be the goal; pointing to Jesus is.

  "If I can speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am simply a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal" (Paul, 1 Corinthians 13).


Was the "Nicene Creed" of AD 381 an update of the Nicene Creed of AD 325? When people talk about "The Nicene Creed," it seems that they are often referring to the document associated with the Council of Constantinople (AD 381).  I'm sure there are many reasons for this, one of which being the similarity between that creed and the one produced by the AD 325 Council of Nicaea (cf. Wikipedia's comparison of the 325 and 381 creeds).

However, I've learned that it is not universally held that the 381 council actually meant to update the 325 creed.  Britannica says:

  Additional discoveries of documents in the 20th century, however, indicated that the situation was more complex, and the actual development of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed has been the subject of scholarly dispute. [...] It was probably based on a baptismal creed already in existence, but it was an independent document and not an enlargement of the Creed of Nicaea.

If this is the case, then it would seem to be incorrect to refer to the AD 381 creed as the "Nicene" creed, or even the "Niceno-Constantinopolitan" creed (as Britannica does), since there would be no direct connection between the two creeds.

What is an overview of the historical evidence regarding the origin of the AD 381 "Nicene Creed"? Did its authors intend for it to be an update of the AD 325 creed? Did any contemporaries call the AD 381 creed "Nicene"?

Or is the 381 creed better understood to be an independent creed?

There are many differences in wording, although with very similar meaning, allowing the assumption that the two creeds are independent of each other, linked only by being based on an earlier baptismal creed. Even so, the authors of the 381 Creed were inevitably aware of the Nicene Creed of 325. Actual evidence that the Creed of 381 is dependent on the Creed of 325 is found in the words "being of one substance [being] with the Father."

Elaine Pagels says, in Beyond Belief, page 174, that this phrase was inserted into the Nicene Creed at the insistence of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, in order to fully exclude the views of Arius, whom Alexander had excommunicated for alleged heresy. Thus, these words could not have been received from a pre-Nicene document, and their existence in the Creed of 381 makes that document at least partly dependent on the Nicene Creed of 325.

Further circumstantial evidence is that the longer and more sophisticated wording of the later Creed is a theological elaboration that is typically found in later versions of a document, and therefore potential evidence that the 381 version is an update of the 325 document rather than of an even simpler, earlier document. The reference to Mary likely to be a result of the Mariology that developed over the later decades of the fourth century.


What is the Biblical basis for Jesus Christ being a created being according to Jehovah’s Witnesses? Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ is a created being. What is the Biblical basis for this position?

Taking a look  at this Watchtower article scriptural citations appear to be from The Common Bible. I believe this is a 1973 edition of the revised standard version.

The apostle Paul wrote concerning Jesus Christ:

  He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”—Col. 1:15-17

Looking at Paul’s further words helps explain what is meant by the phrase firstborn of all creation:

  He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.”—Col. 1:18

The Greek words for both “first-born” (protótokos) and “beginning” (arkhé) show Jesus as the first one of a group or class, “the body, the church,” meaning that  he has preeminence in this respect.
Jesus also has preeminence in another class as the firstborn of the dead. This means Jesus is the first one resurrected to endless life from among all the human dead.—1 Cor. 15:22, 23.

These same Greek words are found in the Greek Septuagint translation at Genesis 49:3:

  Ruben, thou art my first-born [protótokos], thou my strength, and the first [arkhé, “beginning”] of my children.”

We believe that biblical statements like these make it reasonable to conclude that the Son of God is the firstborn of all creation in the sense of being the first of God’s creatures. Jesus in fact refers to himself as “the beginning [arkhé] of God’s creation.” (Rev. 3:14,).

Most professed Christians object to the idea of Jesus as being a created person. They believe that Jesus is himself Almighty God, the second person of a “trinity” of three coequal, coeternal persons in one “godhead.”

Trinitarians protest that  the Greek expression (at Revelation 3:14) for “the beginning of God’s creation” means “the origin (or ‘primary source’) of the creation of God.”
One Greek scholar,Henry Alford, takes this viewpoint as correct. However he concedes in his work “The Greek Testament”: “The mere word arkhé would admit the meaning that Christ is the first created being”. Thus he notes that this is why Arians taught that Colossians 1:15 is in effect saying [“the first and most excellent of all God’s works”]

The book The Expositors Greek Testament says: “to understand Revelation 3:14 as meaning that Jesus is “the active source” of creation, rather than the first created person, one must interpret arkhé “as in Greek philosophy and [non-Biblical] Jewish wisdom-literature,=aitía or origin.”

But it is clear that bible writers did not follow Greek philosophy.

Some would argue,  if Jesus is a created being explain the phraseology “in him all things were created”.

On occasion the Bible uses “all” in a way that allows for exceptions. For example, we read at 1 Corinthians 15:27:

  But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection under him [Jesus Christ],’ it is plain that he [God] is excepted who put all things under him.”

Also consider that the Bible states that “through one man,” Adam, “death spread to all men.” (Rom. 5:12)
Was Adam  part of the “all men” to whom death “spread”?   No. Because previous to Adam there was no human who could have spread death to him. Adam was nonetheless a man.

In this way we can reason that although Jesus was not part of the “all things” that came into existence through him, he was, nevertheless, a created person, the very first creature of God.

Since  Jehovah’s witnesses are convinced that Jesus  is a created person, we understand that he cannot be Almighty God.

This is why we point repeatedly to verses that portray him as in a position subordinate to God.
For example, the apostle Paul said about the resurrected Jesus :

  I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Cor. 11:3)

And notice the words of Jesus to John in Revelation 3:12 Jesus said concerning himself

  He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.

Four times in this verse alone Jesus refers to his Father, Jehovah, as “my God”.

We do not teach that Jesus did not exist before he became a human born of Mary.  Nor do we teach that Jesus is just another angel.

We recognize the exalted position that Jesus occupies next to God. Before ascending to heaven, Jesus said to his disciplesjust before ascending to heaven

  All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matt. 28:18)

It was appropriate for Jehovah to ‘give’ to his Son such authority, since Jesus is the firstborn (preeminent) of all creatures.
Right in line with this exalted preeminent position granted to Jesus the apostle Paul wrote concerning him:

  [God] raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come; and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church.”—Eph. 1:20-23

For more info on the name that is above all names see this answer to a related question.


Where does the communication between God and Satan take place? In the book of Job, it is stated many times that Satan questioned (in His presence) the righteousness of God's servant Job and challenged Him to put Job to the test. Does this imply that Satan can withstand in the presence of God and can freely talk to Him at any time?

Luke 1:19 implies that angels are fully capable of being in the presence of God.

  The angel said to him, "I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God,
  and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news.

Satan, as an angel, would thus be able to commune with God in such a fashion.


What is the view of Islam within the Catholic Church? Ever since Islam arose what has been the view of Islam within the Catholic Church?

The desired answer will include papal and Church magisterium and pronouncements, the view of saints, and while not required, perhaps views of a few prestigious Catholic writers.

The detailed answer will also have a mention on Muhammad the founder, and the Qur'an.

Please note the answer is not the one that will have ALL the pronouncements ever made, but the one that is a succinct summary. For example if Pope A & B say the same thing, summarize and state what the say in common and make a footnote saying all who said the same thing.

Muslims have an incorrect view of God, as they do not recognize the Trinity, nor the divinity of Christ. Muhammad was not a true prophet like Moses, Isaiah, etc.

However, Muslims do worship the "same" God, and Catholics should treat Muslims with love and appreciate the good things they believe.

The most authoritative and well-recognized doctrine comes from the Catecism of the Catholic Church, 841 (Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 9, Paragraph 3, III):

  The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

The  United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’
Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs published in 2013 a detailed explanation Understanding Islam: A Guide for Catholic Educators. A few excerpts:

  Muslims and Christians share many
  common beliefs in their worship of a single Creator God who loves creation and who commands
  that His most cherished creations, human beings, love Him, one another, and His creation.

  Christians do not accord
  Muhammad the same status as the biblical prophets, but may regard him as a prophetic figure on
  such issues as charity and the protection of the poor, widows and orphans.

Pope Paul VI issued the Declaration on
the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions in 1965, which included references to Jews, Hindus, and Muslims.

  The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

  It is...the burden of the Church's preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God's all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.

  The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion.

More recently, Pope Francis said in Evangelii Gaudium 252-3.

  The sacred writings of Islam have retained some Christian teachings; Jesus and Mary receive profound veneration and it is admirable to see how Muslims both young and old, men and women, make time for daily prayer and faithfully take part in religious services. Many of them also have a deep conviction that their life, in its entirety, is from God and for God. They also acknowledge the need to respond to God with an ethical commitment and with mercy towards those most in need.

Your question is rather broad, but I think I have covered the most important points, with authoritative sources.


End of the world "calculations" There have been many "calculations" done by various people from various Christian denominations concerning the precise date of the end of the world, like Harold Camping and 21st of May 2011. Despite those numerous instances of people figuring out the time this event was to occur, I can't find any sources to the exact math behind such claims.

Are there any resources like that available anywhere so one could verify such math and find out the flaws of the "scientific" reasoning behind them? If those are available, have they been revealed before the predicted date was to occur?

The difficulty in verifying the math and the calculations is that every prognostication has its own formula.  In order to verify Harold Camping, for instance, you have to look at the passages he is pulling from.

For example, here is one (and I don't endorse it) showing how they arrive at their numbers.

Probably the most important calculations revolve around the "time, times, and half a time" in Revelation, and the vision of the 70 weeks in Daniel.

There is one mathematical construct in the Bible that bears the most weight, however, and that is Matthew 24:36:

  But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only


What are the main differences between the Baptist and Pentecostal traditions? What do these two movements disagree on? Also what are the differences in the way each group seeks to study and understand the Bible?

Although the Pentecostal movement originated from Wesleyans (an infant baptism movement) these days the large majority of Pentecostal churches are adult or believers' baptism, and is it reasonable to say that Pentecostalism is a sub-branch of the Baptist movement.
(My guess is that they shifted to believers' baptism because of their strong focus on being baptised by the Spirit, which fits much more naturally in the baptism is a human response camp than the baptism is a sacrament for infants who can't express their own thoughts camp.)
So, that said, I think there are a few major Pentecostal distinctives:

Pentecostals believe in a distinct Baptism with the Holy Spirit. Although they believe all Christians do have the Spirit, at some time after their conversion they have a distinct experience of receiving and being empowered by the Spirit. Spiritual gifts are thought to really be given after this Baptism of the Spirit, and many think that the moment of this Baptism is marked by everyone speaking in tongues.
Non-Pentecostal Baptists would say there is no evidence in the Bible of two classes of Christians like this, and they would also say that the idea that everyone should exhibit the same gift (such as speaking in tongues) is against the Bible.

Pentecostals are continuationists - they believe that all spirit gifts are still given now, including the more miraculous or 'signs' gifts such as speaking in tongues, healing and prophecy. Some Baptists are also continuationists, but in general Pentecostals have a greater expectation that these miraculous things will be experienced to a level that is almost commonplace.

Many Pentecostal Christians teach that the gift of prophecy still continues and is common today. Many things are identified as 'prophecy' by different Christians, but for some Pentecostals this will include new messages given for specific people in specific situations with no doubt whatsoever that it is from God, rather than a wise application of part of the Bible. In the worst cases this can get dangerously close to superseding the Bible, with some saying that their prophecies should be considered to be as definite as inspired scripture and that they cannot be questioned.


What is the origin and meaning of the rosary? What is the origin and meaning of the rosary?
It’s a repetitive customary prayer of “Hail Mary, the lord’s prayer, glory be, and oh my Jesus”.

Short answer, another name for the Rosary is the Angelic Psalter.  It is a repetition mainly of the words of the Angel Gabriel to the Blessed Virgin Mary announcing the Birth of Jesus and the words spoken by St. Elizabeth when Mary visited her shortly before the birth of John the Baptist, when he "leapt in her womb".  The reason for its simplicity is that it is for lay-people to pray who wouldn't have access to a regular psalter, like priests and other religious would have.  Originally, there were 150 Hail Marys which was close enough to the 150 Psalms in the Book of Psalms.

From the time Saint Dominic established the devotion to the holy Rosary up to the time when Blessed Alan de la Roche re-established it in 1460, it has always been called the Psalter of Jesus and Mary. This is because it has the same number of Hail Marys as there are psalms in the Book of the Psalms of David. Since simple and uneducated people are not able to say the Psalms of David, the Rosary is held to be just as fruitful for them as David's Psalter is for others.
St. Louis De Montfort - The Secret of the Rosary

While praying the Rosary, for repetitions of the Hail Mary, you're expected to meditate on one of the central events or themes of the Gospel and/or the Life of Mary.  Like I said, originally there were 15 decades with 3 groups of mysteries (Joyful: pertaining to the Birth of Jesus; Sorrowful: Pertaining to His Passion; Glorious: Pertaining to events after the Resurrection) or thing to mediate on, in 2000, the Year of the Rosary, St. John Paul II added another Mystery (the Luminous Mysteries, which are about the works of Jesus).  People who pray the Rosary every day rotate between these mysteries with one to think about every day, almost like priests will do with the Liturgy of the Hours.
The origin of the Rosary itself are a little nebulous as it seems to have been given and redicovered several times since the turn of the second millennium (St. Domininc and Alan De La Roche being key figures).  But from all the Visions and Marian Apparitions (Fatima especially) it's clear that Our Lady wants us praying the Rosary.
The reason there are 10 Hail Mary's in each decade is interesting, especially since I never considered it before figured it just came naturally like a clock with 12 numbers on it. But there is special significance to the number 10

The Dominican tradition consolidated the combination of Hail Marys and events of Jesus' life added to each Hail Mary. Over time fifteen mysteries (events of Jesus' life) were retained and combined with the Hail Marys for each one of the mysteries. Independently from this historical reason, there is a symbolic reason. Ten has the meaning of totality and unity, meaning that each one of Christ's mysteries is part of his total person and work and expresses its unity and totality, as well as its thorough contemplation by the person who says this decade of the rosary.
Why 10 Hail Mary's

The most widely read history of the Rosary can be found in St. Louis De Montfort's Secret of the Rosary a much better answer than mine can be found in Pope John Paul II's encyclical Rosarium Viginis Mariae

The Rosary of the Virgin Mary, which gradually took form in the second millennium under the guidance of the Spirit of God, is a prayer loved by countless Saints and encouraged by the Magisterium. Simple yet profound, it still remains, at the dawn of this third millennium, a prayer of great significance, destined to bring forth a harvest of holiness. It blends easily into the spiritual journey of the Christian life, which, after two thousand years, has lost none of the freshness of its beginnings and feels drawn by the Spirit of God to “set out into the deep” (duc in altum!) in order once more to proclaim, and even cry out, before the world that Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour, “the way, and the truth and the life” (Jn 14:6), “the goal of human history and the point on which the desires of history and civilization turn”.


Does the Bible forbid a man from dressing like a woman? Are there any verses in the Old or New Testaments that forbid a man from dressing like a woman?

My question was prompted by this news article about the Harvest Crusade event and the comments that followed.

In the Mosaic Law, God strictly forbids this:

  A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.  Deuteronomy 22:5 NASB

It must be stated, however, that this was specifically in the Mosaic Law, so it cannot necessarily be extended outside of the Jewish people and that covenant.  In this case, however, it does not seem to be an issue of covenant, but an actual abomination to God.


According to Reformed Theology, how does omniscience relate to election? If before the creation, God had planned everything from A to Z of the life on the earth since it's created until the end of day and every life of each individual from A to Z since he/she was born until he/she dies and who is going to hell/heaven - then what does it mean "omniscience" ?

I mean, a movie maker - based on his scenario story, while he himself also as the actor in that movie, when he is about to start the making of the movie - before he show the story to other actors, isn't he can be called "omniscience" ?

I have tried something like this :
The movie maker there is more like a puppet master, how the other actors respond is staged by him.

For example : (before making of the movie)
In the scenario the movie maker WhatsApp actor-A : hi, where are you now  ?  Then he himself stage the respond from actor-A in WA : I'm in the kitchen now.

God is different. Before the creation, God did not stage actor-A's reply but He knows that actor-A will reply "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid." after He ask "where are you ?".

if like that above - the problem to me is :
when trying to understand it in chronological order - it's still made me think that God doesn't know everything because (before the creation, in His plan) He has to know first that He himself is going to ask "where are you ?" to actor-A, after that then He know how will actor-A respond.

So, what does it mean "omniscience" actually ?

If I try to connect it with the Election doctrine (Predestination), where between A B C D E God elect B and D which automatically God knows that in the day of judgment A C and E will go to hell, B and D will go to heaven.... then this is more similar to my illustration of the movie maker.... which I think there's no need to have a term "God is omniscience" here, because as the movie maker staged that actor-A will bla3x, actor-B will blu3x at the end of the movie - it's the same thing where God staged B and D will go to heaven, A C and E will go to hell.

So, what does it mean "omniscience" and what is the important thing that "God is omniscience" according to the Calvinist ?

I've checked this site, and found a link which describe Omniscience :

  Furthermore God's omniscience is therefore not constrained to temporal
  thinking; he knows everything in the present. He has no conflict with
  what will happen in the future, and the future does not limit him,
  because for him there is no future - all of existence is now.

  God's choices happen in the eternal-present and in no way limit him
  because they are made according to his perfect and infinite nature.

But still I can not understand what does it mean of those sentences.

What does it mean :
1. God omniscience is not constrained to temporal thinking
2. God knows everything in the present
3. God's choices happen in the eternal-present

How do people illustrate those 3 points above ?

First, it would be helpful to just define the term for the sake of clarity.  Omniscience means "all-knowing" and this is derived from "omni" which is a prefix taken from Latin meaning "all", and "scientia", from Latin for "knowledge."

According to many (perhaps most) Reformed theologians, God has foreknowledge of everything NOT because he somehow looks into the future and "sees" what man will do and acts in response; but He Himself has foreknowledge because He has decreed that certain things will come to pass: he does not decree (act in a certain way) because he foreknows, but He foreknows (knows prior to all human action) because he decrees.  He knew from the foundation of the world that the elect would be saved and the reprobate would be damned because He decreed that these things would come to pass.

Even though there has been some criticism about a supposed reconciliation between the two, it usually tends to lean toward Arminianism, and so Reformed thinkers have rightly refused any such efforts.  One Reformed thinker that holds this view (or some slight variation of it) would be Loraine Boettner:

  Foreordination in general cannot rest on foreknowledge; for only that
  which is certain can be foreknown, and only that which is
  predetermined can be certain.  The Almighty and all-sovereign ruler
  does not govern Himself on the basis of a foreknowledge of things
  which might haply come to pass.  Through the scriptures the divine
  foreknowledge is ever thought of as dependent on the divine purpose,
  and God foreknows only because He has pre-determined.  His
  foreknowledge is but a transcript of His will as to what shall come to
  pass in the future, and the course which the world takes under His
  providential control is but the execution of His all-embracing plan.  The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, 99.

Taking the controversial passage in Romans (8:29) that "those whom He foreknew, He predestined..." Calvinists interpret foreknew to be relational, that this indicated a special relationship between God and his elect:

  Calvinists contend that the passage teaches that God set His heart upon (i.e., foreknew) certain individual; these He predestined or marked out to be saved.  Notice that the text does not say that God knew something about particular individuals (that they would do this or that), but that God knew the individuals themselves: those whom He knew He predestined to be made like Christ.  The word "foreknew" as used here is thus understood to be equivalent to "foreloved"--those who were the objects of God's love He marked out for salvation. The Five Points of Calvinism, Steel, Quinn, Thomas. 158

Arminians take it on face value, meaning that even though God is active in influencing them to repentance, that it is a reference to God's knowledge of their future actions, and does not necessarily have any relation to God's action (or lack thereof) in bringing this about.  Prominent Arminian theologian says,

  ...all true Arminians believe in predestination, but not in Calvinist foreordination.  That is, they believe that God foreknows every person's ultimate and final decision regarding Jesus Christ, and on that basis God predestines people to salvation or damnation.  But Arminians do not believe God predetermines or preselects people for either heaven or hell apart from their free acts of accepting or resisting the grace of God. Arminian Theology, 180.

More could be said, but any further discussion would revolve around specific definitions of omniscience, debates about free-will, debates about future contingents, and attempted reconciliations of divine sovereignty and human freedom and the origin of sin/evil, of which last debate, Calvinists have generally fallen into two camps: the first, that we have no idea how the first sin (whether by Lucifer or Adam) came about.  R.C. Sproul held this view:

  We sin because we are sinners.  We were born with a sin nature.  But Adam and Eve were not created fallen.  They had no sin nature.  They were good creatures with a free will.  Yet they chose to sin.  Why?  I don't know.  Nor have I found anyone yet who does know.  In spite of this excruciating problem we must still affirm that God is not the author of sin.  Chosen by God, 31.

Second is that God did it but this in no way compromises His holiness since there is no standard to which God is subject.  Gordon Clark, a famous presuppositional Calvinist apologist held this view:

  God's causing a man to sin is not sin. There is no law, superior to God, which forbids him to decree sinful acts. Sin presupposes a law, for sin is lawlessness...the laws that God imposes on men do not apply to the divine nature.  Reason, Religion, and Revelation, 240.

In response to the 3 follow up questions about meaning:

God's omniscience is not retrained to temporal thinking: these aren't necessarily technical terms, but conservative Christian thinkers believe that God's knowledge is not limited by free actions (unless, like certain Calvinists, you don't believe in free actions or define freedom compatibilistically), and God's knowledge is not in any way imposed upon by the passage of time.  God does not learn anything new or come to believe something that He once believed false, or vice-versa.

God knows everything in the present: this is generally to say that God does not reflect upon any given event as past or future, but is aware of it as a present reality.  This is mostly to say that, again, God's omniscience is not restricted by the passage of time.  This also is a subject of much debate.

God's choices happen in the eternal-present: this is a rather crude metaphor for God's actions and their performance not being defined by our tensed descriptions of time.  To say "eternal-present" is like saying "every moment is now" which is a contradiction, which is why God is often described as transcending time, and so His actions are thus "outside" time.


What arguments do adherents of a global flood give for how water was able to cover the entire earth? Some people say that the story of Noah and flood is false, because there simply wasn't enough water in the world to cover the entire earth in a flood. As it is written:

  And the waters became mighty and increased greatly upon the land, and the ark went [gently floating] upon the surface of the waters.
  And the waters prevailed so exceedingly and were so mighty upon the earth that all the high hills under the whole sky were covered.
  [In fact] the waters became fifteen cubits higher, as the high hills were covered.
  Genesis 7:18-20 (Amp)

What is the counter argument against this belief?

According to http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/SyedQadri.shtml, the total volume of the world's oceans is 1.3 to 1.5 billion cubic kilometers, which comes out to 310 to 360 million cubic miles. The surface area of the Earth is about 200 million square miles. So if the Earth was a perfect sphere, with no mountains, no valleys, no ocean trenches, the water would cover the surface about 1.7 miles deep.

There's water in the ice caps, underground, and in the atmosphere. Perhaps all this water was on the surface during the Flood. But by most calculations this is a relatively small percentage -- hydrologic scientists generally say that 97% of the world's water is in the oceans, 2% in the ice caps, 1% underground, and lakes a rivers a tiny fraction of 1%. So unless there's some very large unknown water reserve -- underground, I suppose -- adding these things in wouldn't change the 1.7 miles much.

Of course the world does have mountains and valleys, so some places are above the water level and others below. The highest mountain is of course Mt Everest, which is 6 miles high. The lowest point is the Marianas trench, 7 miles deep.

So the most obvious scenario for a Flood to cover the whole world is that the mountains before the Flood were smaller than today and the trenches not as deep. If the highest mountains were 1/4 the height today, then they would all be covered by water.

Creation theorists generally suggest that the Flood caused major geological upheavals including relatively rapid movement of the Eartth's tectonics plates, resulting in mountain formation. That is, they say that the high mountains in the world today were formed during the Flood. Of course for the world to not be covered in water before the Flood, the amount of water in the oceans would have had to have been smaller. Genesis mentions water coming from both rain and "the fountains of the deep". The theory generally calls for more water vapor in the air in the form of a large vapor canopy, and also more water underground.

So ther's plenty of water if only the Earth was more nearly spherical before the Flood.


What does "holy thing" refer to in Leviticus? In Leviticus 22:10 (and mentioned in a few other verses too) it says "...shall not eat of a holy thing..."

What does "holy thing" refer to?

"Holy" = "Set Apart (for a Special Purpose)"

"Holy" (qodesh, 6944 קֹדֶשׁ ) means "set apart (for a special purpose)." Its synonyms, like "consecrated" and "sacred" mean the same thing.

In the context of Leviticus 22:10, God is speaking of sacrifices.

  be careful with the holy gifts of the sons of Israel, which they dedicate to Me

Many of the sacrifices that the Israelites were to make gave a portion to the priests and Levites. (Ex 29, Nu 18) These were only to be eaten by (ceremonially clean) priests and levites. They were "holy" because they had been given to God.


Who is the speaker and who is "him" in Daniel 11:1 according to the Seventh-day Adventist? Daniel 11:1 New American Standard Bible In the first year of
Darius the Mede, I arose to be an encouragement and a protection for
him.

In my own interpretation, the speaker is Jesus and the "him" is an angel named Michael.
From the internet I know that the Seventh-day Adventist holds that Michael = Jesus (or vice versa, Jesus = Michael). Hence, my interpretation is wrong in the point of view of Seventh-day Adventists.
I've already tried to search in the internet to find out how Seventh-day Adventists interpret Daniel 11:1... but I can't find one. I did find some articles about Daniel 11 from (I think) the point of view of Seventh-day Adventists, but it either starts from Daniel 11:2 or Daniel 11 as a whole.
So I put my question here.

I'll try to answer your question. As a Seventh-day Adventist, I have some inside information. :)
But before we get to the answer, it is important to understand some things about Seventh-day Adventists.

We have a set of beliefs that we regard as fundamental (click here for our list of 28 Fundamental Beliefs), but even those are not set in stone. They are subject to change. As the preamble to the 28FB states: Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference Session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word. The Bible is the "definitive revealer of doctrines" (see FB 1). We take Isaiah 8:20 seriously.
We hold the Bereans in high esteem. (See Acts 17:11.) We check everything by the law and the testimony. Hence, beliefs are subject to change over time.
Like most groups, and maybe even more than normal, we are not monolithic. We have no creed but the Bible, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that we don't all agree on everything. There are even those who question some of the FB. But that's OK, for the most part. One of my favorite activities with some very close friends is discussing controversial beliefs. It is not uncommon for 3 of us to get together and have 3 different points of view on any given topic.
Given all this, you should not trust too much what you read on the internet about us, even if the writer is one of us, including me. Strictly speaking, getting an answer from a Seventh-day Adventist gets you the answer for that specific Seventh-day Adventist.
The most "official" publication is the 28 Fundamental Beliefs, and Daniel 11:1 is not on the list. Sorry.

Now, to your question: Who is the speaker and who is “him” in Daniel 11:1 according to the Seventh-day Adventist? The speaker is Gabriel and "him" is Darius.
The second most "official" publication is the S.D.A. Bible Commentary, so I'll start there. (However, many Seventh-day Adventists, including myself, do not regard it as authoritative and normative. Remember, the Bible is our only creed.)

The angel is telling Daniel of an event that took place in the first year of Darius. In that year Darius the Mede had been honored of Heaven by a visit of the angel Gabriel “to confirm and to strengthen him” (PK 556). Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 4, page 127

You see PK 556 in that quote. That's a reference to a book by Ellen G. White, who most of us consider to have been given the Spiritual gift of prophecy. Here's what she wrote:

Daniel’s prayer had been offered “in the first year of Darius” (verse 1), the Median monarch whose general, Cyrus, had wrested from Babylonia the scepter of universal rule. The reign of Darius was honored of God. To him was sent the angel Gabriel, “to confirm and to strengthen him.” Daniel 11:1. Ellen G. White, Prophets and Kings, page 556

Here's another quote from her.

Daniel’s prayer in behalf of his people, as recorded in the ninth chapter, was “in the first year of Darius” the Mede. Darius was favored of heaven; for in the first year of his reign the angel Gabriel “stood up to confirm and to strengthen him.” Ellen G. White, The Review and Herald, March 21, 1907

Now here are more quotes from other sources that are more or less well-respected by Seventh-day Adventists.

In Daniel 5:30, it is said: "In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And  Darius the Median  took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old." And in Daniel 11:1, the same angel of the tenth chapter says: "Also I  in the first year  of Darius the Mede, even  I stood  to confirm and to strengthen him." Darius reigned two years, when he died, and Cyrus succeeded to the kingdom; and as the angel stood with Darius the Mede; and with Cyrus in his third year, to influence him so that Daniel's prayer could be answered, it is certain that it was by the influence of his holy angel that the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus to let go the captive people of God. Alonzo T. Jones, The Signs of the Times, February 11,  1886, page 91

But in the conquest of Babylon, Cyrus was only the leader of the forces. The kingdom and rule were given to Darius the Mede; for, said Daniel to Belshazzar, on the night when Babylon fell, "Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians." Then the record proceeds: "In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Median took the kingdom." Of him we read in Daniel 11:1,  the words of the angel Gabriel to the prophet: "I, in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him." Alonzo T. Jones, The Two Republics, page 669

The angel of the Lord had stood by Darius the Mede “to confirm and to strengthen him” (Daniel 11:1) in executing the purpose of God upon Babylon. Jeremiah 51:11-14. And through the faithfulness of Daniel, Darius had been brought to the knowledge of the true God. The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald May 17,  1898, page 316 (I believe this is Alonzo T. Jones also, but can't confirm.)

The Medo-Persian empire was born when the time was ripe for Israel's deliverance from the bondage of Babylon. The first king of the united empire was Darius the Mede. He was a man well advanced in life when he came to the throne; threescore and two years old, the record states. But throughout his reign, Gabriel stood by him "to confirm and to strengthen him." Stephen N. Haskell, The Story of Daniel the Prophet, page 161

The angel, after stating that he stood, in the first year of Darius, to confirm and strengthen him, turns his attention to the future. Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 1909 edition, page 247

Daniel 11:1 does not contain a significant point of doctrine to us so you won't find a significant treatment of it. I have to admit that I have spent more time researching the verse for this answer than the rest of my life combined. It's just fairly straightforward to us that Gabriel supported Darius.
Most of the material I found was from A. T. Jones. I haven't read his stuff, but I suspect that it has a lot to do with civil rights. You can follow the links I provided to dig through our online databases.


What is the difference in doctrine between the Pentecostal church and the Assemblies of God church? I attend an AG church and am told the AG churches are Pentecostal, but a distinction is drawn between AG and Pentecostal. What's the doctrinal difference?

There isn't a difference, in the way you have phrased your question.

Rather, the difference is that Pentecostalism includes many denominations, one of which is the Assemblies of God church.

You can read more about Pentecostalism on Wikipedia, as well as Assemblies of God.  Of particular note, the second article says (emphasis added):

  The Assemblies of God (AG), is a group of over 140 autonomous but loosely associated national groupings of churches which together form the world's largest Pentecostal denomination.


What are the Church fathers' arguments that Peter is the rock? The Roman Catholic Church asserts that the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, is the legitimate successor of the apostle Peter, the "rock" upon whom the Lord Jesus Christ founded his Church, according to its interpretation of Matt. 16:18:

  And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. NABRE

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

  The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope. §881

Are there any writings of the early Church fathers that identify the apostle Peter as "the rock" upon which Christ founded his Church?

Moreover, if these writings do identify the apostle Peter as the rock upon which the Lord Jesus Christ founded his Church, does his identity as the rock have any significance in regards to identifying Christ's true Church?

That is, since the Roman Catholic Church identifies the Bishop of Rome as the successor of the apostle Peter (who they identify as the rock), do any of the writings of the early Church fathers identify the church which the bishop of Rome oversees (i.e., the Roman Catholic Church) as the same church which was founded upon the apostle Peter?

This is one of those issues where Catholic sources will tend to say the Fathers obviously called Peter the foundation of the Church (and supply quotes to prove it) and Protestant sources will tend to say they obviously did not (and likewise supply quotes to prove it).  To get the full picture, you need to look at sources from both sides of the debate.
An ancient debate
It has been said that "few texts have been the occasion for the spilling of more ink than Matthew 16:17-19."1  Catholics, naturally, see the text as proof of the legitimacy of the papacy, while Protestants the verse as establishing the Church under the join authority of all the Apostles or via Jesus' own authority.  One might think this is mostly a recent debate, but in fact debate about the meaning of this verse stretches back to the early days of the Church, long before any schisms arose.
The antiquity of this debate is made clear in a single passage by Augustine.  In his final work, Retratations ("Re-treatments"; 428) Augustine wrote:2

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: "On him as on a rock the Church was built." This idea is also expressed in song by the voice of many in the verse of the most blessed Ambrose where he says about the crowing of the cock: "At its crowing he, this rock of the Church, washed away his guilt."  But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received "the keys of the kingdom of heaven." For, "Thou art Peter" and not "Thou art the rock" was said to him. But "the rock was Christ," in confessing whom as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.

From this passage is it clear that at different points in his life, Augustine interpreted Matthew 16:18 as establishing Peter as the founder of the church, but at other times he believed the "rock" in view was actually Jesus, not Peter.  As we look at other Church Fathers, we will see that both of these options are supported by multiple Fathers. In the end, Augustine didn't have a strong preference and left it up to the reader to decide for him or herself.
Tertullian
Tertullian (c. 160-240) wrote about the meaning of Peter and the Rock on several occasions.  In Scorpiace ("Antidote for the Scorpion's Sting", c. 210), he wrote:3

For though you think heaven still shut, remember that the Lord left here to Peter and through him to the Church, the keys of it, which every one who has been here put to the question, and also made confession [of faith], will carry with him.

From this passage, Tertullian appears to be saying that the "keys" to the Church were passed on from Peter to the Church, which certainly could be read as an argument for apostolic succession and the papacy.  Likewise, in De pudicitia ("On Modesty", c. 220), he wrote that "the Church" has the authority to forgive sins and as justification he writes:

what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter?  On you, He says, will I build My Church; and, I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and, Whatsoever you shall have loosed or bound, not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key

He then goes on to describe a couple other ways in which Peter was primary: He was the first to "unbar" the entrance to heaven through baptism; and, he was the first to open the Gospel message to the Gentiles.  As such, it is not hard to read this passage in support of papal succession.  However, Tertullian concludes the passage by explaining what "the Church" is and says it is "properly and principally, the Spirit Himself" adding that any gathering of believers counts.  He concludes:

And accordingly the Church, it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops.

which is certainly hard to read in a manner that would allow special authority for the papacy.
Tertullian clearly did believe in apostolic succession, for in De praescriptione haereticorum ("Prescription against Heretics", c. 200) he writes:5

For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies)

However, there is no indication in this passage that the Church of Rome has a special authority.  It certainly seems like he views all churches founded by apostles as equal.
It appears that Tertullian viewed Matthew 16:17-9 as conferring a special authority on to Peter.  And he clearly believes in apostolic succession.  However, if he believed that the Church of Rome, founded by Peter, received special authority, he did not make that clear.
Pseudo-Clementine
The Epistle of Clement to James, supposedly a letter from Clement I (pope 92-99), supports the idea of papal succession through Peter.  In truth in was not written by Clement, but rather an unknown writer around 220 AD.  The fact that it is pseudographical is certainly problematic for doctrinal purposes and such, but does not mean the attitude of the writer did not reflect a common attitude of his day.  "Clement" writes:6

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon, who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus Himself, with His truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; ... But about that time, when he was about to die, the brethren being assembled together, he suddenly seized my hand, and rose up, and said in presence of the church: "Hear me, brethren and fellow-servants. Since, as I have been taught by the Lord and Teacher Jesus Christ, whose apostle I am, the day of my death is approaching, I lay hands upon this Clement as your bishop; and to him I entrust my chair of discourse

While the writer of this letter does not quote Matthew 16:18 directly, he perhaps alludes to it and certainly sees Peter as the foundation of the Church.  Furthermore, he clearly believes in a special authority for the Church of Rome passed from Peter to Clement.  The pseudographical nature of the letter does raise questions as to how mainstream the belief was at the time (people often wrote pseudographically when they wanted to elevate the legitimacy of a minority position), but there are other possible motives for the pseudography (e.g. to elevate the importance of Clement), so the belief may well have been mainstream.  At minimum, the document establishes that the idea of papal succession founded on Peter began prior to 220 AD.
Similarly, it the Clementine Homilies, which may or may not have been written by the same hand, into Peter's mouth is put the claim to be the foundation of the church:7

For in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church, you now stand.

Origen
In his extensive commentary on Matthew (c. 250), Origen (c. 185-255) comments on the rock passage a couple times.  In book 13, he writes:8

in the case of Peter, this saying "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens," has been specially set before the words, "And what things soever you shall bind on earth," etc. And, indeed, if we were to attend carefully to the evangelical writings, we would also find here, and in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter and those who have thrice admonished the brethren, a great difference and a pre-eminence in the things said to Peter, compared with the second class. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more

As such, it appears that he does see a special authority assigned to Peter.  However, on the "rock" specifically he writes that every believer can "become a Peter" upon which the Church is built.  He further argues:9

But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? ... [anyone who professes belief] will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of rock who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does.

It seems pretty clear that Origen believes the church is not founded on the authority of Peter alone, but on all the Apostles.  Furthermore, the promise passes not to a specific successor, but rather to all believers.  All become the "rocks" on which the church stands.
Cyprian
Cyprian (c. 200-260) perhaps offers one of the most favorable statement for the Catholic position of papal primacy.  In the first edition of De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate ("On the Unity of the Catholic Church", c. 250), he comments on Matthew 16:17-19, writing:10

On [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair, and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"

As written this passage seems to be a clear endorsement of not only Peter as the founder of the church, but also a special authority for his successors.  The picture is complicated a bit, however, because Cyprian released a second edition of De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate in which he revised this passage:10

Upon [Peter], being one, [Jesus] builds His Church, and although after His resurrection He bestows equal power upon all the Apostles... that He might display unity, He established by His authority the origin of the same unity as beginning from one. Surely the rest of the Apostles also were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership of office and of power, but the beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one.

Overall the gist of the passage is the same - all the Apostle had equal authority, but the Church was founded upon Peter specifically - but the language is considerably softened.  Why did Cyprian make this change?  A Protestant will, of course, say it was because the passage conveyed a higher degree of authority for Rome than Cyprian actually intended.  However, this is not necessarily the case.  In addition to changing the language, Cyprian significantly expanded the passage.  It is possible that he was making the same argument in both cases - that Rome was given a special authority for the sake of Church unity - and was simply making it more clear that the Church at Rome wasn't "better", but rather only had a special (but equal) position.
Elsewhere (Epistle 39, c. 253), Cyprian wrote:11

There is one God, and Christ is one, and there is one Church, and one chair founded upon the rock by the word of the Lord. Another altar cannot be constituted nor a new priesthood be made, except the one altar and the one priesthood.

Given that we know Cyprian does equate the rock to Peter, it seems very likely that he means what he says in the first version of De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate.  That is, that the Church at Rome does have a special authority via its foundation by Peter.
Firmilian
In a letter to Cyprian (c. 253), Firmilian (? - 270) uses Matthew 16:18-9 to say that Peter was given a unique authority to forgive sins, which through him was inherited by the Church:12

But what is the greatness of his error, and what the depth of his blindness, who says that remission of sins can be granted in the synagogues of heretics, and does not abide on the foundation of the one Church which was once based by Christ upon the rock, may be perceived from this, that Christ said to Peter alone, Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

On the surface, this appears to establish papal authority and is sometimes quoted by Catholics as doing so.  However, Firmilian continues:

And again, in the Gospel, when Christ breathed on the apostles alone, saying, Receive the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins you remit they are remitted unto them, and whose soever sins you retain they are retained. Therefore the power of remitting sins was given to the apostles, and to the churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops who succeeded to them by vicarious ordination.

which casts doubt on whether he believed Peter's special authority was passed on to his successors specifically, as opposed to the Church as a whole.  His position is made clear when, a bit later in the letter, he writes:

And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority... Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity.

It seems the letter was written in response to a letter by Pope Stephen I in which he argued that repentant heretics did not need to be (re-)baptized, but should be freely admitted to the Church.  Apparently, Stephen claimed authority to decide such matters based on a special authority for his office, handing down through Peter.  While Firmilian agrees that Peter was given a special position, he evidently strongly disagrees that this authority has been passed to Stephen in such a way that allows him to establish doctrine.
Cyril
In a homily around the year 350, Cyril (c. 313-386) described the heretic Simon Magus making trouble in Rome and then remarked:

As the delusion was extending, Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right

and then quotes Matthew 16:19 as justification for Peter's authority:13

For Peter was there, who carries the keys of heaven: and nothing wonderful, for Paul was there, who was caught up to the third heaven, and into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful far a man to utter.

From this passage, we can conclude that Cyril considered Peter (jointly with Paul) to be the first "ruler" of the Church and can place him at Rome.  It is reasonable to think that Cyril was alluding to/supporting the idea of the papacy here, although as near as I can tell he did not comment directly on apostolic succession anywhere in his writings.
Ephraim
Writing in poetic form (c. 350; commonly described as a homily although not necessarily a homily in the modern term),  Ephraim (c. 305-373) writes the following (presumably coming from Jesus' mouth):14

Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures!

Although it is not explicit, the most natural reading of this passage is that Peter is the first leader of the Church and is given a special authority.  Furthermore, it is natural to see Ephraim as saying that authority is then passed on through a line of succession ("heirs").
Optatus
In his untitled treatise against Donatism (c. 370), Optatus (?-387) repeatedly draws on Matthew 16:17-19 to establish the legitimacy of the papal teachings and the illegitimacy of Donatist anti-popes.  For example:13

gates against which we read that Peter received the saving Keys - Peter, that is to say, the first of our line, to whom it was said by Christ: 'To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,' and these keys 'the gates of Hell shall not overcome.'
How is it, then, that you strive to usurp for yourselves the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, you who, with your arguments, and audacious sacrilege, war against the Chair of Peter?

In the same work, he writes:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim - each for himself - separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner.  Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

The word translated "Cephas" here is actually κεφαλή (kephale, literally "head"), hence Optatus is making a play on words similar to (but different from) Jesus' "rock/Peter".   He doesn't reference the "rock" specifically anywhere in his work, but does reference the surrounding context - as illustrated above - and makes explicit reference to Peter conferring a special authority on the Church at Rome.  (Optatus always explicitly endorses papal succession and includes a list of the popes, starting at Peter and continuing to his day.)
Ambrose
As we have already seen (in Augustine's commentary), Ambrose (c. 340-397) interpreted the rock passage as conferring a special authority on Peter.  In Exposition of the Christian Faith (c. 380), he wrote:16

Could He not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on His own authority, He gave the kingdom, whom He called the Rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church?

And in Enarrationes in xii. Psalmos Davidicos ("Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David"), he wrote:

This is that Peter to whom Christ said, ' Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Therefore, where Peter is, there is the Church;

In isolation, these passages seem to suggest that Ambrose not only viewed Peter as having a special position in the Church, but arguably also as supporting papal succession on this basis.  However, his view was a bit more complicated than that as can to seen by, for example in Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam ("Exposition of the Gospel according to Luke") he writes:17

Christ is the rock, for ‘they drank of the same spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ’; also He denied not to His disciple the grace of this name; that he should be Peter, because he has from the rock the solidity of constancy, the firmness of faith. Make an effort, therefore, to be a rock! Do not seek the rock outside of yourself, but within yourself! Your rock is your deed, your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you...He who has conquered the flesh is a foundation of the Church; and if he cannot equal Peter, he can imitate him.

In this passage, he seems to be saying Jesus is the "true Rock" on which the Church is founded and Peter's "rockship" is available to all believers, not just the pope.
Conclusion
There is sufficient evidence within the writers of the Church Fathers to find an early basis for the idea that "on this rock I will build my church" gives Peter a special position within Church history.  There is also evidence that some Church Fathers saw this passage as a justification for a special place for the Bishop of Rome; that is, as a basis for papal authority.  In some cases, the evidence is pretty clear, but in many cases it is ambiguous, and is some cases the writings appear to argue against the idea.  Thus, no firm conclusion can be drawn about a collective teaching of the Church Fathers.  Perhaps the most accurate statement would be that opinion was mixed as to whether Jesus started a special office via Peter.
It seems likely that the debate about what Jesus meant exactly by "on this rock I will build my church," which began in antiquity, will continue indefinitely.  Neither those who believe Peter passed on a special authority to the Church at Rome nor those that deny it have a conclusive case in the writings of the Fathers.

References
1 "Peter the Rock" by Tim Staples at Catholic Answers
2 The Retractions (The Fathers of the Church, Volume 60) by Saint Augustine
3 Scorpiace by Tertullian at Tertullian.org
4 On Modesty by Tertullian  at New Advent
5 Prescription against Heretics by Tertullian  at New Advent
6 *Epistle of Clement to James at Tertullian.org
7 "Homily 17 at New Advent
8 Commentary on Matthew, Book XIII by Origen at New Advent
9 Commentary on Matthew, Book XII by Origen at New Advent
10 "The Unity of the catholic Church in The Faith of the Early Fathers by W. A. Jurgens
11 Epistle 39 by Cyprian at New Advent
12 Epistle 74 by Firmilian at New Advent
13 Catechetical Lecture 6 by Cyril at New Advent
14 "Homilies" in The Faith of the Early Fathers by W. A. Jurgens
15 Against the Donatists by Optatus at Tertullian.org
16 *Exposition of the Christian Faith, Book IV by Ambrose at New Advent
17 *A Commentary, by Writers of the First Five Centuries, on the Place of St. Peter in the New Testament by J. Waterworth


If there were no punishment for sin would salvation be necessary? Every time I hear someone say that 'If God were a loving God he would not send people to Hell', It makes me wonder Why does God, who is such a loving God send unbelievers to Hell.

Since Jesus said that the Lake of fire was created for the Devil and his angels, and not for unbelievers;

Matthew 25:41  KJV

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

I have heard that there are some Christians who do not believe that God will so punish unbelievers.

Are there any mainstream Churches who endorse this position?

At one time, the belief in universal salvation was the defining characteristic of a Christian denomination known as the "Universalists" or the "Christian Universalists."

That denomination, however, merged with the Unitarians, and is no longer considered a Christian denomination by people inside or outside that church.  There remain some Christian Universalists, but not with sufficient numbers or organization to be considered a mainstream Christian denomination.


Are OT verses in Hebrews 1 actually verses about Jesus? In Hebrews chapter 1, the author notes several Old Testament verses as references to Jesus. I have read these Old Testament verses and some don't actually sound like they are about Jesus at all.

For example, Heb 1:5 says

  For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I
  have become your Father"? Psalm 2:7

But how do you actually know that Psalm 2:7 is pointing to Jesus? How do you actually justify these references to OT as "pointers" to Jesus?

The author of Hebrews is quoting Psalm 2:7 along with 2 Samuel 7:14. These two passages have been linked together as a Messianic reference since before the time of the NT. From the ESV Study Bible notes on the text we can see how to view these two references in regards to David and the Messiah:

  In the context of Samuel, the reader might assume this refers to
  David’s son Solomon, but Solomon failed to follow the law and was not
  “established forever” (2 Sam. 7:16); hence, the promise can only be
  fulfilled by the Davidic Messiah. Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7 are linked by
  the special designation “Son,” and by their messianic theology (a link
  also assumed in NT-era Judaism, e.g., 4QFlorilegium in the Dead Sea
  Scrolls). 1

Additionally, Christian commentators since then have seen this specific verse a direct pointer to Christ, that David as the Israelites best king was foreshadowing the Messiah and that the full kingdom of God would go beyond what David had done. Calvin states it this way:

  It cannot be denied that this was spoken of David, but in so far as
  Christ was in him; therefore, the things we find in this psalm were
  foreshadowed in David, but manifested in Christ. When David conquered
  the many enemies surrounding his kingdom and enlarged its borders,
  there was a foreshadowing of the fulfillment of the promise, I shall
  give the nations for thine inheritance. But how little this was
  compared with the Kingdom of Christ, which extends from East to West! 2

Given that this was an established interpretation in Judaism (not Christianity, but the Jewish expectation for a Messiah) it is then clear to see why the author of Hebrews used these two passages to reinforce to his audience (1st century Jews) the position of the Messiah.

Lastly, although there are other topics here that address Jesus identity as the Christ, I will cite one way in which there is a direct link to the Jesus of the gospels. There are 4 instances in the gospel in which the audible voice of God uses the same title, “Son” to apply to Jesus.

  "and behold, a voice from heaven said, 'This is my beloved Son, with
  whom I am well pleased.'”  Matthew 3:17

  "and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and
  a voice came from heaven, 'You are my beloved Son; with you I am well
  pleased.'”  Luke 3:22

  "He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them,
  and a voice from the cloud said, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I
  am well pleased; listen to him.'” Matthew 17:5

  "And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud,
  'This is my beloved Son; listen to him.'” Mark 9:7

1 Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (2362). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

2 Calvin, J., & Anderson, J. (2010). Commentary on the Book of Psalms (Ps 2:7–8). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.


What does "communion of saints" mean in the Apostle's Creed? The original text can be found on wikipedia.

Near the end of the creed, there is this phrase:

  I believe in... the communion of saints...

What does this exactly mean? I understand that communion means a 'sharing in common', but I'm not entirely sure of the meaning and implications of this statement.

Note:

The Apostle's Creed is not unique to the Roman Catholic Church, and is accepted by many other denominations. I expect to hear the perspectives of all churches where the creed is accepted.

Wikipedia has a good article on the concept. The phrase means that Christians are united in the Body of Christ, a teaching based on 1 Corinthians 12 (and some other passages).


What is the archaeological evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah? Exactly as the title says. What is the archaeological evidence that Sodom and Gomorrah existed and were destroyed by fire from the heavens (Genesis 19:24)?

The search for the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah have been a common archaeological pursuit over the years. There have been some proposals, and I do recall seeing a documentary about a couple such sites, near the Dead Sea, which may be very likely the Biblical cities stated. It is difficult to say for absolute certain whether these are the cities mentioned in the Bible or not, but there are some interesting arguments for their identification as such.

The documentary that I saw was on the History Channel, and mentioned the sites named Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira as candidates. They existed near each other and both were destroyed, somehow, around the same time.

There are other cities that have been proposed, however. You can see a quick writeup on Wikipedia here.


What KJV publishers today include the "Translators to the reader"? Are there any publishers of the KJV Bibles today that include not just the epistle dedicatory, but also the "translators to the reader", which is 10 or so pages long? There are a few publishers that produce really nice KJV Bibles which include the epistle dedicatory, but not the translators message to the reader.

[ update ]
This is a few samples of what I'm referring to
http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvpref.html

http://ecmarsh.com/lxx-kjv/kj_account.htm

http://www.pitt.edu/~hunter3/KJVbible/Preface.html

[ update 2 ]
Also, as far as comparing KJV publishers, here is one comparison that lists separately, the Dedicatory and the "Translators to the Reader"
https://evangelicalbible.com/bibles/allan/allan-longprimer/

I know of one other publisher so far, Trinitarian Bible Society that I think includes the Translators message to the reader.

[ update 3 ]
The reason for my interest in this and desire to have a KJV Bible with it included, is there is a wealth of history in these few pages (about 10-4 or so)

The 1611 version (notice the epistle dedicatory and the seperate "translators to the reader")
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/1611-King-James-Bible-Introduction.php

https://library.osu.edu/innovation-projects/omeka/exhibits/show/the-king-james-bible/sidebars/the-translators-preface-to-the

The Trinitarian Bible Society has published the 'Translators to the Readers' section in my copy which I bought on-line from them.

The front page says this:

  The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments translated out of the original tongues and with the former translations diligently compared and revised by His Majesty's special command (that would be King James VI of Scotland and I of England)

Here is the note that precedes the section 'The Translators to the Reader':

  This preface was written by the translators of the Authorized Version, and appeared in full in the original 1611 printing. It was omitted for reasons of space as smaller-sized Bibles were produced in later years, and is rarely to be found in modern editions.  The text of this Preface is taken from F. H. Scrivener's 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible.

The Trinitarian Bible Society is based in London, U.K. https://www.tbsbibles.org/default.aspx


Swear to tell the truth 'so help me God'? I know that in court if you don't believe in God you are allowed to simply give an "Affirmation" instead of an Oath. But what I want to know is why any Christian would swear an Oath to tell the truth "So help me God"? Where did the idea that this is OK come from? I think the words of Christ were pretty clear, but as far as I know only a few denominations such as Quakers and Mennonites agree with that position (and I certainly don't see eye to eye with them on many key issues). Has there been any justification presented for doing this, or are people just doing what is expected of them from the government?  Here is a relevant passage on the subject: Matthew 5:33-37

  33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ 34 But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

My understanding is that the passage quoted does not forbid all oaths in general, but in specific was addressing the practice of the Scribes and Pharisees, who were invoking the name of God, or heaven in their oaths, and breaking them.  I don't see myself where the Scribes or Pharisees are mentioned specifically.

I'd have to study it out further, but I do believe that he was teaching based on a general lack of reverence for the name of God.  Taking an oath made in God's name is serious, which is why Jesus warned us to let our yes be yes and our no be no.  It is better not to swear on the name of God than to swear and break it.

There's an excellent article on this here: http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/index.html?mainframe=/webfiles/antithesis/v1n1/ant_v1n1_oaths.html

In it, the author explains how and why this applied to the Scribes and Pharisees, not to all oaths in general.

It goes on to cite scriptures in the bible where we are expected, and even commanded to swear oaths in the name of God in certain occasions.

The following is a small excerpt from the articles, where this is explained, with scripture references:

  The general context of Scripture, when studied carefully, reveals that
  God does not forbid all oaths.

  First, Scripture commands us to swear by the name of God on certain
  occasions. In Deuteronomy 6:13, for example, Scripture commands God's
  people "You shall fear only the Lord your God; and you shall worship
  Him, and swear by His name." Far from prohibiting all oaths, Isaiah
  tells us that "he who swears in the earth shall swear by the name of
  God" (Is. 65:16). God sanctions lawful oaths to such an extent that He
  promises to build up those who swear by His name (Jer. 12:16). Even in
  the mundane affairs of life, such as confirming the truth between
  disputing neighbors, God commands His people to swear before Him (Ex.
  22:10-11). Because Scripture commands God's people to swear by His
  name, it cannot forbid all oaths. God does not command what He
  simultaneously condemns!

  Second, Scripture also teaches us that swearing is an act of
  confession and religious worship. We already saw in Deuteronomy 6:13
  that God commands us to swear in His name precisely because swearing
  in God's name is but one way to worship and fear Him (cf Deut.10:20).
  Isaiah confirms this connection between swearing and worship; when he
  prophesies about the Assyrians and Egyptians coming into a covenantal
  relationship with God, he says that they will swear in the name of
  God. (Is. 19:18). Calvin explains that "by swearing in the Lord's name
  they will profess his religion."[6]

  But exactly how is swearing an act of confession and worship? When we
  duly swear in God's name, we confess several things about God. To
  begin with, we confess that God exists. Moreover, we confess several
  of God's attributes as revealed to us in Scripture: we testify that He
  is omnipresent and omniscient, that He is eternal and immutable, that
  He is just and true, that He is powerful and wrathful. By confessing
  His existence and attributes, we also confess that He is the Supreme
  Judge over all the earth and that we are accountable to Him for all
  that we do and say. Though the word of men may fail, the word of God
  never fails. Though men may fail, God never fails. By taking oaths in
  God's name, we confess God to be the ultimate arbiter of truth, and we
  worship the God of truth in spirit and in truth.

Finally, in the context of swearing in in court, or an oath of office, the practice started when more people understood and respected the gravity of swearing such an oath.  It was meant to be binding.

They believed, correctly, that an oath sworn in God's name should carry more weight, and that it is a serious thing to break it.  Whether or not people still see it that way, or if we're merely repeating words these days, is open to debate, and likely as individual as those taking the oaths.


Is there a co-relation between the name or Bethlehem and Jesus' teachings? Bethlehem, the birth-place of Jesus literally means 'house of bread' . It is possible that the town had a good concentration of bakeries, from which oven-baked bread of prized quality was bought by the people of adjoining areas. It looks coincidental that Jesus frequently used the image of 'bread' in His teachings, culminating in the institution of Holy Eucharist. I wish to know if any studies have been made by the Catholic Church on the co-relation of the name of Jesus' birth place and His teachings in which bread plays a prominent part.

Has there been a formal study done by the Church? Not necessarily. But there are plenty of books and articles and homilies and podcasts on the topic:

Blogs:

desiringgod.com - Bethlehem: House of Bread
archspm.org - I know Jesus was born in a manger, but why is that important and what does it mean?

Books:

The Eucharist: A Bible Study Guide for Catholics
Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper
The Hidden Manna: A Theology of the Eucharist
The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth
Consuming the Word: The New Testament and The Eucharist in the Early Church

Podcast:

https://catholicstuffpodcast.com/podcast/2011/06/30/how-transubstantiation-works.html

The short answer is yes, the name 'house of bread' has significance when relating to His other teachings. Christ was born in a manger in the town 'house of bread.' Let's break that down.

What exactly is a manger? A manger was used as a feeding trough for the swine. So the obvious significance here is that Christ was born and immediately laid in a place where food is eaten from. Think of the symbolism here: Jesus would institute the Eucharist, His own flesh and blood for us to consume, the same flesh and blood that was born into a feeding trough. And where was that feeding trough? The house of bread! His flesh would be presented in a trough for us to eat under the disguise of bread. Manger in the house of bread, Bread of the Eucharist on the altar.

Another point, 'manger' comes from a French word that means 'to eat.' When translated from Greek, John chapter 6 uses the same word when Jesus says to eat (or chew) his flesh. (https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2012/12/30/the-meaning-of-jesus-being-born-in-a-manger/)

There is also some symbolism about Him being born into a feeding place of swine because the Jews could not eat pork, but that is for another topic...


What is "New Creation" according to Catholicism? 2 Corinthians 5:17 (ESV)

  Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old
  has passed away; behold, the new has come.

I don't know if this subject has importance in Catholicism. Therefore, I want to know what Catholicism has to offer regarding this topic.

How has Catholicism explained what is "New Creation"?

Well, as a Catholic, I'm not going to attempt to interpret the Bible, here's the commentary from the New American Bible:

  A new creation: rabbis used this expression to describe the effect of the entrance of a proselyte or convert into Judaism or of the remission of sins on the Day of Atonement. The new order created in Christ is the new covenant.

I asked a similar question concerning St. Thomas Aquinas' Hymn  concerning the what he meant by the New Rite and apparently he's talking about the New Covenant and the New Covenant is the Gospel message which is Salvation through Christ.

At a superficial level, I'd assume he was talking about Baptism.  When you're baptized you're made a "new creation" in Jesus.  The new creation would be the new life of the spirit dwelling within the newly minted Christian.


Where can I find the 5800 Greek NT Manuscript copies? How do we know 5800 is a correct figure if we can't even locate these manuscripts?
How reliable is this figure?
Which libraries in which countries in the world hold these manuscripts?
Who first found out and established that it was 5800 copies?

Who said we can't locate these manuscripts?!

Wikipedia actually has a pretty thorough set of lists of NT manuscripts:

List of New Testament papyri (136)
List of New Testament uncials (322)
List of New Testament minuscules (1–1000), (1001–2000), (2001–) (2911 total)
List of New Testament lectionaries (2453)

The lectionaries list is the least complete here, only having a few hundred out of the 2453 it says have been categorised by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research (INTF). You could I'm sure get their full list, but you might have to pay for it, and it might be in German.

Add up the papyri, uncials, minuscules, and lectionaries and you get 5822, which is likely the source of the 5800 that you've been seeing. But any total number like this will only be a rough estimate. Our knowledge of manuscripts is constantly changing. Wikipedia notes that 47 new manuscripts were discovered in Albania in 2008, and the number can decrease as well: as scholars discover that partial manuscripts which had been categorised separately are actually parts of one manuscript.

For most scholars however the data is considered pretty reliable, as minuscules and lectionaries play a smaller role in their studies than the papyri and uncials because of their later date. Wikipedia gives a table showing the dating of the manuscripts by century. The dominant position of textual critics is that the earlier manuscripts provide stronger witnesses to the original texts. However should a new papyrus be discovered, of which we currently only know of 136, you can be sure that Biblical scholars will pay close attention to what it says.


Is Mary's human soul pre-existent in eternity? There is a statement in the Catholic Catechism that says that Mary is chosen from all eternity by God. Would this mean she pre-existed in eternity with God, or does "chosen" not really imply pre-existence?
Mary's predestination:

488 "God sent forth his Son", but to prepare a body for him, he wanted the free co-operation of a creature. For this, from all eternity God chose for the mother of his Son a daughter of Israel, a young Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee, "a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary":
The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in the coming of death, so also should a woman contribute to the coming of life.

What does the Catholic Church teach on Mary's soul?  Is there an official doctrine explaining that Mary's soul pre-existed in eternity?

In 1661, Pope Alexander VII released the Bull "Sollicitudo omnium eccl.," which reads in part:

  The devotion to the most blessed Virgin Mary is indeed of long standing among the faithful of Christ who believe that her soul, from the first instant of its creation and infusion into her body, was preserved immune by a special grace and privilege of God from the stain of original sin. (Denzinger 1100 – Latin "in primo instanti creationis atque infusionis in corpus")

This, combined with the general Catholic teaching in favor the creation of all souls (cf. Pope Pius XII, "Humani generis", "the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God") and the Church's opposition to the pre-existence of souls, indicates that Mary is not an exception to the rule: her soul was immediately created at the time of its infusion into her body, in the womb of her mother.


Are animals under the curse? Animals without a doubt go against the commandments of God. There are gay animals, animals that kill each other for no reason, etc.

Does it say in the bible that the animals are under the curse of sin as well? If so, how is that justified? As in, why should animals suffer the curse of sin when they were not made in the image of God, did not disobey God, and are not descendants of Adam?

Paul does say that "the whole creation" (including animals, presumably) suffers because of the fall:

  For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.—Romans 8:19-22 (ESV)

Francis of Assisi is famous for preaching to animals.  Whether or not this is apocryphal, it illustrates his concern for non-human life.  Wikipedia also notes:

  Francis preached the teaching of the Catholic Church, that the world was created good and beautiful by God but suffers a need for redemption because of the primordial sin of man. He preached to man and beast the universal ability and duty of all creatures to praise God (a common theme in the Psalms) and the duty of men to protect and enjoy nature as both the stewards of God's creation and as creatures ourselves.

The final words of God in Jonah express compassion for both Nineveh and its cattle.

On the other hand, humanity is clearly distinct from the rest of creation:

  Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.

  —Genesis 1:26-27 (ESV)

It would be a mistake equate the effects of sin on animals with their effect on humanity.  It's also clear that creation will be relieved of its curse when we take on our rightful place as children of God.

Summary

The Bible, early Christians and many doctrinal frameworks assert creation has suffered as a result of original sin.  But I don't know of any Christian group that puts the effects of the curse on animals at the same level as the curse upon humanity.


Genesis 28:18 Where Did Jacob Get the Oil? Genesis 28:18 New International Version (NIV)

  18 Early the next morning Jacob took the stone he had placed under his
  head and set it up as a pillar and poured oil on top of it.

Do you have any scriptural references on where did Jacob get the oil? During those times he is a wanderer, he is exhausted. Why would he bring oil along?

Genesis 28:18 (NLT)

  The next morning Jacob got up very early. He took the stone he had
  rested his head against, and he set it upright as a memorial pillar.
  Then he poured olive oil over it.

Olive oil was very important in ancient Israel. It was used for not only as food and for cooking, but also for lighting, sacrificial offerings, ointment, and anointment for priestly or royal office(src).

  Olive Oil in Bible Times:
  Olive oil was considered to be one of the great sources of wealth in the days of King Solomon (cf.
  I Kings 5:11; II Chronicles 2:10). Solomon gave to Hiram each year in
  return for services rendered by his men, among other things, twenty
  thousand baths of oil, one bath being about seven and one-half
  gallons. The prophets Ezekiel and Hosea make mention of the exporting
  of oil to other lands (Ezekiel 27:17; Hosea 12:1). Oil has been used
  for a great variety of purposes in the Orient. It largely took the
  place of butter in eating, and for cooking purposes it was used in
  place of animal fat. Ezekiel mentions three important items of diet of
  which oil is one, and flour and honey are the other two (Ezekiel
  16:13). And olive oil was used almost exclusively for light in lamps.
  The most famous example of this is "the ten virgins, which took their
  lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom" (Matthew 25:1). Also oil
  is used today in Bible lands in the manufacture of soap, and it is
  quite likely that it was so used in Bible days. And oil was often used
  for anointing the body. Naomi told Ruth, "Wash thyself therefore, and
  anoint thee, and put thy raiment upon thee, and get thee down to the
  floor" (Ruth 3:3). Then oil was many times used in various religious
  ceremonies. It formed a part of the meal offering (Leviticus 2:1). The
  prophet was anointed with oil when he took over his duties (I Kings
  19:16). The priest was also anointed with oil when he took over his
  duties (Leviticus 8:12). And the king was anointed either by a prophet
  or by the priest (I Samuel 16:13; I Kings 1:34). In New Testament
  times the sick were anointed for the healing of their bodies (Mark
  6:13; James 5:14).  (source)

Where did Jacob get the Oil?

  Matthew Poole's Commentary

  As a monument of God’s great kindness and gracious manifestation of
  himself to him, which might bring this mercy to his remembrance in his
  return, Genesis 31:13. This was an ancient practice among the
  patriarchs, Genesis 35:14; but afterwards, upon the growing abuse of
  it among the heathens, it was forbidden by God, Leviticus 26:1 Deu 7:5
  12:3.

  The oil he brought with him either for food or medicine, or for the anointing of himself, as need required;

  and poured it upon the top of the stone, as a token of his
  consecration thereof to this use to be a memorial of God’s favour to
  him. Oil was used in sacrifices, and in the consecration of persons
  and places, Exodus 30:25,26 40:9.

Though Jacob lived at a very early age of the history of Israel, the use of Olive oil seems to be popular from around that time, as confirmed by Matthew Poole in his commentary. 400 years after Jacob, Moses also used Olive oil for many purposes. Seems like things didn't change much within 400 years.

  Command the Israelites to bring you clear oil of pressed olives for
  the light so that the lamps may be kept burning. (Exodus 27:20, NIV)