Q: Why does God repeat many of the old testament prophecies in the book of Revelation at the end of the new testament?

A: Good question. Most Christians have not studied enough of the Old Testament to recognize that the book of Revelation, including the first three chapters, is Old Testament doctrine. It does not just have Old Testament symbols or Old Testament sounding words. The doctrines in it (including chapters 1-3) actually come right out of the Old Testament. I have an article called The Seven Churches of Revelation which I believe will make the explanation clear. The short explanation is that Revelation is a book to the people of Israel by an apostle of the circumcision (John) for the kingdom dispensation, not to us in our present dispensation of grace. The Mosaic law was put into abeyance when the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, and Revelation was written to the people of Israel prior to that time. The book of Revelation also applies to the future tribulation, after this grace age ends at the rapture of the church and the law resumes.

Q: Is tithing an old testament commandment under the old law of Moses only, or should it still be in effect today as an ordinance for the church under grace today also?

A: Tithing was only required under the law of Moses. Under grace, generosity is encouraged, but no percentage is ever specified. Plus tithing under the law of Moses always went to the Levites, the priests of Israel. But today, we are not under the law of Moses and we do not have priests. Besides, it was not money, but animals and crops that were tithed (tithe means one out of ten).

Tithing is a touchy issue with many preachers who do not want to rely upon God to provide as He sees fit through the generosity of their congregations. So many teach their congregations that tithing is commanded of us for today by passages such at Malachi 3:10, when it is not. Most do not rightly divide the Word of God, and therefore may honestly believe that we are still to keep certain parts of the Mosaic law. However, tithing is often dragged forward into this present grace age, even by preachers who understand the dispensations and know better.

Our Apostle Paul never even uses the word "tithe" in all of his 13 letters to the Gentiles (Romans-Philemon). Some tithing advocates try to use the early verses of 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 to support tithing. However, tithing is not even mentioned in this passage, as no percentage was specified. Plus, that money went to poor Jews living in Jerusalem under great persecution and famine. The money did not go to the local church.

Some will say that in Genesis 28:22, Jacob tithed, which was before the law, indicating that tithing was proper before the law. But Jacob tithed voluntarily. Nobody commanded it, and he did not have to do it. Also, what was he tithing and who to? Jacob had no priest to whom he could give any money, animals, or crops. As a shepherd, all he could do was simply sacrifice unto God one out of ten sheep and goats from his flocks. You will never hear a preacher today suggest that we do that. But you will sure hear them try to use this passage to say we should give ten percent of our money to his local church, which is not at all what Jacob was doing.

Some will argue that in Matthew 23:23, Jesus Christ said we should give a tithe. But Jesus did not say that WE (Christians under grace) should give a tithe. He said that the Pharisees, who were Jews under the law of Moses, should tithe. Remember that all during Christ's earthly ministry, the nation of Israel was under the law of Moses. That is the "old covenant" or the "old testament". The translators of our Bibles today made some incorrect assumptions when they labeled the portion of scripture that covers Christ's earthly ministry as "New Testament". Israel was very clearly under the old covenant throughout that time. God will make a new covenant with Israel when Jesus Christ returns (Jeremiah 31:29-34).

Q: Regarding the disciple's prayer (which is most often called the Lord's prayer), we know that Jesus Christ was sent to the people of Israel, and Paul was later sent to the Gentiles. If all Israel would have believed and been baptized, then the kingdom would have come. So am I right in assuming that this prayer "thy kingdom come" does not apply to us in this present dispensation of grace (church age)?

A: In Matthew 6:9-13 Jesus Christ says, "... Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Also see Luke 11:2-4.

This prayer was for the Jews who were under the law of Moses to pray. One statement in particular would directly conflict with our dispensation today. Christians today are not to ask for God to forgive our sins, because we have already been forgiven (Colossians 2:13 and 3:13). If we ask for forgiveness, then we are not believing when Paul said we have already been forgiven of all our sins. On the other hand, praying "... Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven ...." is alright for us today, but has a different meaning for us than it did for them. We can pray for His kingdom to come, but we know that for us, that means we will be raptured and God's will regarding the tribulation and the setting up of the kingdom will be fulfilled afterwards. We have a different perspective of the kingdom from that of the Jews in Christ's day. As for the other statements in the disciple's prayer, I see no reason why they would not be applicable today.

Q: Are the sign gifts such as tongues and healing still valid for the church today?

A: In 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 Paul writes, "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." During the transition period which follow Christ's earthly ministry, the gifts of knowledge, tongues, and prophecy, were all means by which God's Word could be made known in absence of the portion of scriptures commonly called the "new testament", which had not yet been written. When the full revelation of the perfect Word of God had been given (the completion of the Bible), then the gifts of knowledge, tongues, and prophesy passed away, as these verses foretold.

The sign gifts were given for the nation of Israel (1 Corinthians 1:22). The sign gifts of tongues, healing, and miracles passed away as the kingdom program passed off of the scene and the grace program came in. Even the tongues in the Corinthian church were a sign to the unbelieving Jews that were right on the other side of the wall and could probably even hear the words that were spoken (see Acts 18:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 14:22). The passing away of the sign gifts happened gradually and was finally completed when the city of Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed in 70 AD, around which time, all the books of the Bible were completed..

In the final years before the last books of the Bible were completed, there were no more healings through men with gifts. Shortly after Christ's ascension, miraculous signs and healings were commonplace. (Acts 2:4, 43, 3:6, 5:12-16, 6:8, 8:6-7, 9:40, 10:46, 14:3). But after 30 or so years, even apostles and faithful saints are left sick or have to take medication for frequent ailments (2 Corinthians 12:5-10, Colossians 4:14, 1 Timothy 5:23, 2 Timothy 4:20). Of course God can still heal whoever He wants, whenever He wants, and sometimes He still does today. Therefore our prayers for the sick are certainly warranted. But God no longer heals for the purpose of giving a sign or through any particular "faith healer".

Q: Is the King James Version of the Bible the best translation?

A: The King James version (KJV) is a very good translation, quite possibly the best. It is the one I use throughout my web site and it is the primary one that I use for study. Since it was translated before most of the various protestant denominations were formed, it is less likely than the newer versions to contain words translated on a slant toward one belief or the other. Of course, there were different beliefs back in 1611 as well, so we have to be careful. I would never tell anyone that there is only one Bible translation that they should read. For serious Bible students, I suggest a Bible dictionary for Greek and Hebrew words, such as Strong's dictionary.

Q: Is the King James Version of the Bible a perfect translation?

A: All of God's Word is perfect in the original manuscripts in the original languages. But the scriptures never indicate that the KJV or any other translation would be perfect.

There are some who claim that the King James Version (KJV) is a perfect translation into English. But that belief is based upon flawed logic.

Psalms 119:89 says, "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Likewise, Isaiah 40:8 says, "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever." This is also echoed in 1 Peter 1:24-25. So God made it clear that His Word would endure forever.

But the question is: Did God specify seventeenth century English? No. There were English speaking people for thousands of years before the KJV was translated in 1611. So it is utterly obviously God never promised to have His written Word available to every English-speaking person for all times, much less, to everybody everywhere for all times in every language.

The notion that the King James Version is translated perfectly is not based upon scripture, but upon the traditions of men. To insist that the KJV is perfect is to put man's tradition above what the Word of God actually says.

All translations have at least a few errors introduced by the processes of translating languages making copies by hand. For some Greek and Hebrew words, there simply is no correct English translation, because there is no English word that means the same thing. Also, many Greek and Hebrew words are either more specific than or more general than the word to which they are translated in English.

The Greek word 'Hades' and Hebrew word 'Sheol' are examples of Biblical words for which there is no perfectly correct English translation. The article called Hell Part 2: The Differences between Hades and the Lake of Fire explains this particular example.

In rare cases, there are glaring mistakes in translation. For example, the Greek word "pashua" occurs in Acts 12:4. It is correctly translated "passover" in almost every Bible translation including NASV, NIV, and Amplified. But the KJV incorrectly translates it "Easter", which is actually the name of an ancient pagan sex goddess (same as Ishtar). Easter and passover do not even occur on the same day of the week and are frequently separated by many days on the calendar. So it behooves a Bible student to have both Greek and Hebrew Bible dictionaries and to do some digging.

The King James is a very good Bible translation for study, but don't let anybody tell you it's a perfect translation.

Q: Do you have any good Bible study resources or study tips that you would recommend?

A: I highly recommend a Bible study computer program that has Greek and Hebrew study helps. There are lots of good ones out there. I like to use On-Line Bible. It has several English translations plus 3 Greek and 2 Hebrew manuscripts. It only costs about $50 and you can freely make copies for others.

If you want to check whether a particular Greek or Hebrew word is translated correctly, check to see how that same Greek of Hebrew word is translated in other places in the Bible. If it is translated a different way in most other places, it may not be translated correctly in the verse you are examining.

As for a study Bible, the Scofield Study Bible is a good one. It comes in KJV and has lots of good cross references, a 42 page dictionary of scriptural proper names, a 38 page subject index, a 162 page concordance, and 12 maps. The words of Jesus Christ are in red letters. Of course all the words are His, but those words He spoke in His earthly ministry are in red. It also has the carved out tabs to make the books of the Bible easier to find. You can get them in variety of colors, including black leather at most Christian bookstores.

Q: What Bible passages are there regarding homosexual activity?

A: There are many passages on this topic in both the old and new testaments. Leviticus 18:22 says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." The new testament is very clear on this as well. Romans 1:24-27 says, "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

But in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul says that there is a way out, as there is with all other types of sin. "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." Note the it says "such were some of you", past tense. God had brought them out of it.

These days there is a lot of debating as to whether certain people are born with these specific temptations or not. Perhaps that would be an interesting discussion, if it even mattered as far as God is concerned, but it does not. The Bible teaches that we are all born with sinful natures as a result of being sons of Adam, and we all need our Redeemer. "Wherefore, as by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned ..." (Romans 5:12). We are all born with a sinful nature. Ephesians 2:3 says that even Christians, before we became believers, "... were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Being born with a temptation for a sin is no excuse for committing that sin, no matter what the sin is. God holds us all responsible, and redemption by faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ is our only hope. Romans 5:19 says, "For as by one man's (Adam's) disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one (Jesus Christ) shall many be made righteous." This verse makes it very clear that we were all made to be sinners by Adam's sin. We are not sinners because we sin. We sin, because we are sinners.

For further reading, see Genesis 18:20 - Genesis 19:28, which describes the events surrounding God's destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. The account of Sodom and Gomorrah is referred to again in 1 Kings 14:22-24 and in Jude 7. Also, Judges chapters 19 and 20 provides an account of an episode involving the tribe of Benjamin which was similar in many ways to the account of Sodom and Gomorrah. Also see Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10.

Q: Regarding Hades and the resurrections, if no one is in the lake of fire yet, then why is the rich man, described by Jesus Christ in Luke 16:19-31, being burned?

A: That rich man was and still is in Hades burning in flames of torment, much like the lake of fire. But the key difference is that right now, he does not have his body. He is only in soul and spirit form. At the end of the 1000 years the rich man and the rest of the lost will be resurrected in their bodies, and will then be cast body, soul, and spirit into the lake of fire to be tormented for all eternity. Hades has two halves, one side for comfort and one side for torment, separated by an impassable gulf. The comfort side was vacated when Christ was resurrected, while the torment side is still occupied and will not be vacated until the end of the 1000 year kingdom. The lake of fire is presently empty and has no comfort side. For further study of this and related questions, see the article called Hell Part 2: The Differences between Hades and the Lake of Fire.

Q: In the Bible, does the word "church" always refer to a group of Christians?

A: No. The word "church" does not always refer to a group of Christians when it is used in the Bible. The Greek word that is translated "church" in the King James Version is "ekklesia," which just means "a called out gathering of people in an assembly". The word "ekklesia" was translated "assembly" when it referred to a group that was obviously composed predominantly of pagans in Acts 19:32, 39, and 41. Another example occurs in Acts 7:38, when Stephen refers to the "church" in the wilderness during the 40 years of the children of Israel's wandering. Certainly these people were not Christians. For the most part, they were not even believing Israelites. In Hebrews 3:16-19, they are characterized largely by unbelief. Now as far as I am aware, every time that Paul uses the word "ekklesia," he is referring to Christians. Sometimes he is referring to a local assembly of Christians, but often he is referring to all Christians everywhere. This usage is so common in the Bible that some people may be confused in those few cases when the word is referring to a group that is not all believers. So we must be careful not to assume too much when we see the word "church" in the Bible. It usually refers to an assembly of Christians, but not always.

Q: What about the origins of dinosaurs? Were they pre-Adamic? If not, did they get into the ark? It would seem that they clearly did exist at some time.

A: Yes, they certainly did exist. They, like all other land creatures, were created on the sixth day (Genesis 1:24-25), the same day as Adam, approximately 6000 years ago. So technically, you could say they are "pre-Adamic", but only by a few hours at the most, not by 60 million years. I am aware that many Christians (and the vast majority of unbelievers) believe that dinosaurs lived much longer ago than that. But I see no way for that view to square with the Word of God. Here is why:

Paul wrote in Romans 5:12, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned ...." There was no death before Adam sinned. Death had not yet "entered into the world".

Paul also wrote in Romans 8:19-22, "For the earnest expectation of the creature (creation) waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." When Adam sinned the whole creation fell under the curse and was placed under the "bondage of corruption". So none of the dinosaurs, or any other animals, could have died prior to Adam's sin. All of the fossils of dead animals that are found are from creatures that have died since Adam sinned.

The dinosaurs did not become extinct during the great flood either. Genesis 7:14-15 says, "They (the 8 people), and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life." So if any dinosaur species were still around at the time of the flood, then two of that species would have been brought onto the ark.

Of course some would contend that the ark would not have been able to hold them all because of their great size. But consider that we know that crocodiles which can grow to 20 feet, are only about a foot long when hatched. If that same 20:1 ratio were applied to the brontosaurus, we see that hatchlings may have been only around 4 feet long. So space on the ark would not have been a problem at all.

So what possibilities does that leave?

1. The dinosaurs could have all become extinct prior to the flood.
2. The dinosaurs could have all become extinct in the years after the flood.
3. Some could have become extinct before the flood and some after.

In my article, Creation Science and Evolution Myth I wrote, "After such a catastrophic flood, we would expect to find vast numbers of dead animals and plants, all over the world, buried in rock formed by flowing water. That is exactly what we find. Many dinosaur graveyards have been found containing the skeletons of thousands of dinosaurs together, with their bones aligned in a uniform direction, indicating they were all killed together in one massive water flow." So the scientific evidence points toward the great flood itself being the cause of the vast majority of the fossils that are found on the earth today.

And since according to Genesis 7:14-15, all creatures with breath of life were represented aboard the ark, then for nearly all the species for which we have fossils today, there were representatives of that same species were on the ark. Those which became extinct, must have done so sometime after the flood. We do know that the environment on earth was changed tremendously as a result of the flood. Perhaps these changes did not favor them. This would seem to point to either possibility number 2 or number 3, which were mentioned above.

Another consideration is that reptiles continue to grow throughout their lives, never really reaching a full size. Perhaps the great size of reptiles is because life-spans were so long before the flood. For that matter, many of the mammals were greatly oversized as well. These are also discussed in the Creation Science and Evolution Myth article. We do know that fossils of 50 foot long crocodiles have been found which are virtually identical to modern crocodiles except for the size. The tyrannosaurus may be called the king, but I don't see one of them messing with a 50 foot long crocodile. Perhaps certain dinosaur species never became extinct at all, but are just so small now that we do not recognize them as dinosaurs.

Q: Why do you think that Paul's meeting with the other apostles in Galatians 2:1-10 was the same meeting as the one that took place in Jerusalem in Acts 15:4-29, rather than some other meeting?

A: First, by process of elimination, we can rule out all of the other meetings Paul had in Jerusalem that are recorded in the book of Acts. Second, we can confirm that Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 15:4-29 are the same meeting examining the commonalities of Paul's account in Galatians 2 and Luke's account in Acts 15.

After Paul's conversion in Acts 9, four visits that Paul made to Jerusalem are recorded in the book of Acts. Besides the one in Acts 15 the other three were:

1. Acts 9:26 - Paul made this trip to Jerusalem just 3 years after his conversion as he records in Galatians 1:18-19. But the Galatians 2 trip was 14 years after his conversion according to Galatians 2:1. Also, Paul just met Barnabas in Jerusalem in Acts 9, whereas they traveled to Jerusalem together in Galatians 2. So Acts 9:26 and Galatians 2:1-10 are not the same trip to Jerusalem.

2. Acts 11:29-30 - As stated above, the Galatians 2 trip was 14 years after Paul's conversion. However, the Acts 11 trip was also long before that. Paul made this trip to Jerusalem at the time of the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 AD. Herod's death is recorded in Acts 12:20-23, and the return of Paul and Barnabas to Antioch is recorded in the next 2 verses. Subtracting 14 years from 44 AD takes us back to 30 AD, prior to Christ's crucifixion. But we know that Paul's conversion came well after Christ's crucifixion. Since Paul mentions in 2 Corinthians 11:32 that Aretas was king when Paul left Damascus, we know that Paul's conversion was around 37 AD. So Acts 11:29-30 and Galatians 2:1-10 are not the same trip to Jerusalem.

3. Acts 21:17 - Paul made this trip to Jerusalem at the end of his third missionary journey. We know that this was not the trip recorded in Galatians 2 because Barnabas was not traveling with Paul in Acts 21. Barnabas went to Jerusalem with Paul in the Galatians 2:1. But Barnabas was not with Paul in Acts 21, since he and Paul had parted ways in Acts 15:38-41. Also, Paul was thrown in prison for two years at the end of the Acts 21 visit, but he was not thrown in prison at the end of the Galatians 2 visit. So Acts 21:17 and Galatians 2:1-10 are not the same trip to Jerusalem.

That leaves us with Acts 15. Below are several commonalities between the Acts 15 and Galatians 2 accounts that let us know that they are indeed the same meeting.

1. In each account, the Jews had a doctrinal dispute with what Paul was teaching. See Acts 15:1-2 and Galatians 2:4-5.

2. In each account, Barnabas went with Paul to Jerusalem. See Acts 15:2 and Galatians 2:1.

3. In each account, the discussion was over whether the Gentiles should be required to keep the law of Moses. See Acts 15:1 and 15:5 and Galatians 2:3-4.

4. In each account, grace has to be contended for. See Acts 15:7-12 and Galatians 2:5.

5. In each account, Peter and James are both present. See Acts 15:7 and 15:13 and Galatians 2:9.

6. In each account, they come to an agreement that the Gentiles are not to be required to keep the law of Moses. See Acts 15:10 15:19 and Galatians 2:6-9.

With all other known visits to Jerusalem ruled out, and with all of the commonalities that there are between Acts 15 and Galatians 2, it seems quite conclusive that Acts 15 and Galatians 2 record the same meeting in Jerusalem.

Q: When we study any Bible passage, shouldn't we be focused on answering, "How does this passage apply to my life today?"

A: Many Christians today are taught that the proper way to look at any Bible passage is to first ask themselves, "How does this passage apply to my life today?" They then read the passage, trying to answer that question.

At first, this may sound like a good idea. But actually, it is a terrible way to go about Bible study, and it leads to great confusion. The reason is that this question contains the inherent assumption that, "I (we grace age Christians) have been the central focus of God's attention ever since God created the earth." Now I know that sounds pretty cocky, but that is the mindset of the majority of Christians. Quite often it is unintentional, as most just follow along with whatever they have been taught. Unfortunately, most Christians are never taught that millions upon millions of people were or will be saved from before the flood, from before the law of Moses, from under the law of Moses, out from the future tribulation, and during the future millennial kingdom reign of Christ on earth, and that none of these millions of saints were or will be grace age Christians like we are today. Therefore, many Bible passages are not intended to apply directly to our lives today. We are presently in the grace dispensation. This dispensation was committed to Paul, who is our apostle (Romans 11:13). He is the Apostle of the Gentiles, and his 13 epistles to us are Romans-Philemon. The majority of the scriptures in the Bible apply directly to someone else who either lived in a previous dispensation or will live in a future dispensation from us. God has made all of His Word available for our learning, and there are many things that we can learn and apply to our lives. But before we can do that, we must first ask ourselves: Who is speaking in this Bible passage? Who is being spoken to? What dispensation were they under? What are the circumstances laid out in the context of the passage? This is all so we can first understand what the passage meant to the people to which it was spoken. When you approach Bible passages in this way, you will often find that it means something quite different from what you would have thought if you had just assumed it was spoken directly to you.

It is ironic but true: "If you read the Bible, just trying to see how it applies to your life today, more often than not, you will miss out on how it applies to your life today." For a summary of the dispensations, which is essential to sound Bible Study, see The Basics of Understanding the Bible.

Q: Is it alright for women to be preachers?

A: Our Apostle Paul prohibited women from teaching men or usurping authority over men (1 Timothy 2:11-12). "Let the woman learn is silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." This does not mean that women are not allowed to teach at all. Paul says that older women are to teach younger women (Titus 2:4), and women are also to teach their children (1 Timothy 5:14), just not men. Priscilla, with her husband, Aquila, showed the eloquent Apollos "the way of God more perfectly" (Acts 18:24-28). As a result, he became a great asset in the ministry. Also, Paul entrusted Phoebe with delivering his epistle to the Romans (Romans 16:1-2). From my own experience, I know that my wife is an excellent Bible study partner. Never-the-less, I see no way that a woman preaching to a congregation of adult men and woman can be anything but a violation of 1 Timothy 2:12. From 1 Timothy 3:2, 3:11, and Titus 1:5-6, it is clear that elders and deacons are to be men. It is most unfortunate that many churches choose to simply ignore passages such as these which do not agree with their view of the world.

Q: Does the Bible have anything to say about abortion?

A: Having children was considered to be a wonderful blessing in the ancient days. So from what I can tell, the idea a trying to intentionally get rid of a child before it was born was a totally foreign concept.

Never-the-less, God's Word protects the life of the unborn just like any other life. Under the Law which God gave to Moses to give to the children of Israel, causing a woman to have a miscarriage was punishable by death. Exodus 21:22-25 (NIV) says, "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

So under the law which God gave to Israel through Moses, the punishment for killing an unborn child was the same as the punishment for killing an adult, death. Notice that in the above situation, the death of the unborn child was unintentional and due to carelessness during an act of violence. Yet it was still punishable by death. If it had been intentional, you can be certain that the punishment would have been no lighter.

There are also many verses which speak of various patriarchs and prophets being in the womb. Here are a few of them:

Jeremiah 1:4-5 says, "Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

Genesis 25:21-23 speaks of Jacob and Esau in the womb of Rebekah. "... Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. And the children (Jacob and Esau) struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD. And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger." Notice that in the womb, Jacob and Esau are called "children", not "tissue" or "fetuses". Hosea 12:3 also makes reference to this, "He (Jacob) took his brother (Esau) by the heel in the womb ...."

Judges 13:3-5 tells how the angel of the LORD appeared unto the wife of Manoah saying, "... Behold now, thou art barren, and bearest not: but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son (Samson). Now therefore beware, I pray thee, and drink not wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing: For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines."

Luke 1:41 says, "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe (John the Baptist) leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost ...."

David, writes in Psalms 139:13, "For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb."

Each of these cases shows that occupant of the womb is a person, a child. Therefore, any harm that one brings to a child will surely be judged by God to be exactly that, and nothing less.

Q: Will the lost have different degrees of eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire?

A: Matthew 11:20-24 says, "Then began he (Jesus) to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee."

Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum were cities in Galilee region of northern Israel where Jesus had taught and performed many mighty miracles. Sodom was a wicked city that God destroyed back in the time of Abraham (Genesis 19). Tyre and Sidon are ancient Phoenician cities on the Meditaranean coast of what is now Lebanon. These are the cities of which God spoke in Joel 3:4-8 saying, "Yea, and what have ye to do with me, O Tyre, and Zidon (Sidon), and all the coasts of Palestine? will ye render me a recompence? and if ye recompense me, swiftly and speedily will I return your recompence upon your own head; Because ye have taken my silver and my gold, and have carried into your temples my goodly pleasant things: The children also of Judah and the children of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the Grecians, that ye might remove them far from their border. Behold, I will raise them out of the place whither ye have sold them, and will return your recompence upon your own head: And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the LORD hath spoken it."

The repeated statements in Matthew 11:20-24 that "it shall be more tolerable" for certain cities in "the day of judgment" than for other cities, seems to imply that the eternal punishment for some will be worse than for others. Notice that this passage also demonstrates God's infinite foreknowledge, since He knows what the people of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom would have done if mighty miracles had been done in their cities.

Chapter 10 of Luke presents a similar situation as the one above. Luke 10:1 says, "After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come." Continuing down a few verses to Luke 10:8-12 Jesus says, "And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you: And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day (the day of judgment) for Sodom, than for that city." From there, the Luke account continues and repeats much of what we just read in Matthew 11:20-24.

In a parable about a steward and his servants, Jesus said in Luke 12:47-48, "... that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Even those receiving the lesser sentence will receive a punishment that will last for all eternity. So it will no doubt be horrible beyond anything that we can conceive, but this passage does seem to indicate different degrees of eternal punishment for the lost.

Q: Questions about the tribes of Israel?

A: There are many questions that people often ask about the tribes of Israel such as:

What is the Biblical history of the tribes?
What prophecies are given in the scriptures about them?
Why did the tribes separate into two kingdoms?
Where are the tribes now?
Are the ten northern tribes lost forever?
Are the prophecies about them going to be literally fulfilled?

There are also quite a few strange, unscriptural teachings regarding the ten northern tribes of Israel that people frequently ask about.

Therefore, I have written an article called "The Tribes of Israel" which explains what we know from the scriptures about the tribes. It includes a study of the ancient history of the tribes of Israel as it is chronicled in the old testament. It also includes an examination of the Biblical prophecies that God has given regarding the tribes and a discussion of the more recent history of Israel over the last one hundred plus years. Then the article looks at some common false doctrines that are sometimes taught regarding the tribes of Israel. So for any of these types of questions about the tribes Israel, please see the article, The Tribes of Israel.

Q: Does the Bible recommend that parents spank disobedient children?

A: Yes, certainly. In fact, corporal punisthment is not just a recommendation, but a commandment. Some of the most straight-forward statements on disciplining children are given in the book of Proverbs:

Proverbs 13:24 says, "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." Spanking one's disobedient child is not child abuse. Not spanking one's disobedient child is the real offense. No loving parent will refrain from spanking their child when correction is needed. Likewise Proverbs 23:13-14 says, "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell."

Proverbs 22:15 says, "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him." Never underestimate the persuasive teaching power of a good spanking, or the sad consequences of not spanking. Proverbs 29:15 says, "The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame."

Proverbs 19:18 encourages parents to stand firm. "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying." When a child needs a spanking, do not let his tears convince you not to carry our your responsibility as a loving parent.

In many places in the Bible, strong parallels are provided between the relationship between God and believers (His children) and the relationship between earthly parents and their children. For example, Hebrews 12:5-8 says, "And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons." God provides the example, where He chastens His children. Parents should likewise follow God's example, and chasten their disobedient children.

Hebrews 12:9-11 continues, "Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby."

Q: When Christians die, do our souls go to the be with the Lord or do our souls sleep in the grave until the coming of Christ?

A: The scriptures sometimes refer to the dead as being asleep (John 11:11-14, Acts 7:60, 1 Corinthians 11:30, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). However, the references of a believer having gone to sleep only refer to the way the body of the dead appears. It does not mean that the soul of the dead person is not concious.

Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 5:5-8, "Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. Therefore we are always confident knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." So when we as believers die, our souls leave our bodies and go to be with the Lord.

Likewise, in Philippians 1:21-23 Paul wrote, "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better ...."

Upon the death of the body, the souls of the saved go to be with the Lord and the souls of the lost go to the part of Hades that is reserved for torment. The account that Jesus gives in Luke 16:19-31 tells of Lazarus and Abraham in paradise and the rich man in torment. All three are dead, yet fully concious.

One clear example of souls remaining concious though their bodies are dead occurs in Revelation 6:9-11 where John wrote, "And when he (the Lamb, Jesus Christ) had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the alter the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled."

Of course these are the souls of tribulation saints (who have not yet been resurrected in their eternal bodies) and not the souls of believers from this present grace dispensation. Still, this pasage shows that the soul can be awake and concious in heaven, even though the corruptable body is asleep in the grave.

Death is certainly not the end of our association with our bodies. In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 Paul explains how the dead in Christ will rise again in their bodies, "But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent (precede) them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words."

Paul provides further insight on the rapture in 1 Corinthians 15:51-55, "Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?"

So at some future time which only God knows, the trumpet will sound that signals our catching away. Then all of the souls of the Christians who have died will return to their dead bodies, which will be instantly changed to immortal, incorruptible, eternal bodies and come out of their graves. Then the bodies of all Christians who are left alive will be instantly changed into immortal, incorruptible, eternal bodies. We will be caught up into the clouds to meet our fellow Christians who have died and our Lord Jesus Christ in the air. Then we all shall be with our Lord forever.

Q: Does a person have to initially believe in the virgin birth in order to be saved?

A: The article Elements of the Gospel and Our Ascended Lord may be very helpful with this question. It details the elements of the gospel as recorded in the letters of Paul, and shows from the scriptures just which facts are part of the gospel message and which ones are not. The virgin birth is a fact, but it is not part of the gospel. The gospel is that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, freely gave His life as the perfect sacrifice to pay for all of our sins, and was crucified and rose from the dead. If a person is not aware of the virgin birth, but believes the gospel, then they are saved by grace through faith in the gospel, despite not knowing about the virgin birth.

In all of his 13 letters to the Gentiles (Romans-Philemon) and Hebrews, our Apostle Paul (Romans 11:13) only makes one reference to the virgin birth, and even that one is somewhat vailed. In Galatians 4:4 he wrote, "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law ...." The phrase "made of a woman" may be a reference to the virgin birth. Was Paul so negligent as to forget to include part of the gospel message in his letters proclaiming the gospel? Of course not. The virgin birth, touched upon only once in Paul's letters, simply is not part of Paul's gospel. By contrast, Paul mentions Christ's death 64 times, and His resurrection 40 times (by my counting detailed in the article).

Of course, if a person were shown from the Bible that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, and then said that they did not believe it, then we might suspect that they do not really believed the gospel either. For which is harder to believe, one being born of a virgin or one rising from the dead? From the human standpoint, both seem equally impossible, but with God, both are equally possible. In any case, one is saved by grace, through believing the gospel (Ephesians 2:8 and Romans 1:16). Beyond the gospel, other Biblical understanding is very important, but not essential for one's salvation.

Some doubters of the virgin birth may argue that the word "virgin" in scripture does not imply that a girl has yet to know a man, but that it simply means "a young girl". Well that might be an interesting word study, but regardless of whether such an interpretation of the underlying Hebrew and Greek words are correct, it is still very obvious from the scriptures that Mary had not known a man at or prior to her conception of Jesus. Isaiah 7:14 prophesied, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." In order for a birth to be "a sign" from God, there has to be something miraculous about it. An ordianary conception and birth would never qualify as "a sign".

Matthew 1:18-25 makes it even more obvious, "18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." Given that this passage refers to Mary being "found with child of the Holy Ghost" and the angel of the Lord saying "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost" and that Joseph "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son", it is obvious that the doctrine of the virgin birth is not dependant upon an interpretation of the underlying Hebrew and Greek words for "virgin".

Q: Was Paul the first of the apostles to be made aware of our Lord paying for our sins through His death and shed blood?

A: Yes. The blood of Jesus Christ was shed for atonement for our sins. But this fact was a mystery, until our risen Lord Jesus Christ revealed it to our Apostle Paul.

From Matthew 16:21-22, Luke 18:33-34, and John 20:9, we know that during Christ's earthly ministry, the twelve apostles did not know that Jesus Christ was going to die and rise again from the dead. It was hidden from them by God.

Paul received the gospel of grace by direct revelation from our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul wrote in Galatians 1:11-12, "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." He was appointed as the apostle of the Gentiles to reveal mysteries previously kept hidden. One of these is the mystery of the gospel. Paul wrote in Ephesians 6:18-20, "Praying always ... for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel for which I am an ambassador in bonds ...." Paul's gospel had been a mystery. It had not been known to anyone before God revealed it to him.

Paul's letter to the Ephesians was written around 62 AD, about 30 years after Jesus Christ had ascended into heaven. Paul had already completed his first three missionary journeys. In Ephesians chapter 3, Paul wrote in verses 1-4, "For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery: (as I wrote afore in few words Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) ...." So we see that God by "revelation" showed Paul the "mystery" which no one knew before. This is why Paul calls it "my knowledge". "Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and the prophets by the Spirit ..." (Ephesians 3:5). Note the change in tense here. Compare the present tense of "is now revealed" (to the apostles around 62 AD) with the past tense of "he made known unto me" (Paul) by revelation at an earlier time. Then in Ephesians 3:9 he wrote, "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ ...."

In about 66 AD, Peter, near his death, acknowledged that God had revealed many things to Paul. He writes in 2 Peter 3:15-16, "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him (not "unto us", but "unto him") hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things hard to be understood ...."

From Romans 16:25, it is evident that the what Paul calls "my gospel", was a mystery until God showed it to him by revelation. "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began ...."

Why did God keep our gospel a secret for so long? Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 2:7-8, "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory". No one was allowed to know it, not Peter, the apostles, Judas, Pilate, the demons, or even Satan himself. Thus the crucifixion of Jesus as payment for our sins took place as God planned.

Q: Please explain the old testament references to "unicorns" in the KJV.

A: Regarding the Hebrew word "reym" that is translated as "unicorn" in the KJV, Strong's dictionary defines it as, "probably the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct. The exact meaning is not known." Aurochs (extinct for several hundred years) were the wild ancester of modern domestic cattle.

Most other English translations do not translate "reym" as "unicorn". Young's Literal Translation, NIV, NASV, and Amplified each translate most of the occurences of "reym" as "wild oxen". The Darby version of the Bible translates it as "buffalo".

From the way it is used in the nine verses where it occurs, it was apparently a horned, wild, land animal that was very strong. And it was an earthly creature, not a heavenly creature. It is mentioned in Numbers 23:22 and 24:8, where God's strength as He brought the children of Israel out of Egypt is compared to it. In Job 39:9-12, it is spoken of as a very strong, yet wild animal that will not serve man. It is also mentioned in Deuteronomy 33:17, Psalms 22:21, 29:6, 92:10, and Isaiah 34:7.

The verses do not seem to indicate that the animal had only one horn. But if this were the case, it may be worth noting that some species of rhinoceros have only one horn, while other species have two horns, with the front horn being larger. And of course, the rhinoceros has the characteristics being very strong and wild, as does the buffalo and the wild ox.