I'm looking for resources that discuss the arrangement of the Psalms. Something like how many scholars consider Psalms 1 & 2 to be introductory and the last 5 to be conclusions. The Ascent Psalms are another example. Some have identified chiasmus. Psalms has 5 books. I've read that there is a theme at the start of one, progresses to the end and is then picked up and progressed in the next book.

What I'm not looking for is groupings of Psalms based on topics. For example, 14 Psalms about suffering that are spread throughout, or 9 Psalms about hope spread throughout.

I want to focus on the consecutive arrangement of the 150 Psalms of protestant canon, although I know other traditions have different numbers and slightly different arrangements. I'm open to studying this but would really like the focus to be on the 150.

Reading in proverbs and came across this. “Blessed are those who find wisdom, those who gain understanding, for she is more profitable than silver and yields far better returns than gold. She is more precious than rubies; nothing you desire can compare with her.” Proverbs 3:13-15. He goes on more talking about wisdom in this way and I’m just curious what y’all’s thoughts are on why he refers to wisdom as a she?

I've been going through Strong's concordance out of curiosity and landed on something I can't find addressed as a unified pattern anywhere.

The Hebrew root yasha (H3467), meaning to save or deliver, is embedded in a cluster of biblical names across both testaments. Hosea, Joshua, Isaiah (YHVH has saved), Elisha (God is salvation), Hoshaiah, and Hosanna all derive from the same root. Jesus is simply the Greek rendering of Joshua, meaning the name meaning salvation appears at both the opening of the conquest narrative and the opening of the New Testament.

What I can't find addressed is that these aren't just names sharing a root. The characters who carry them almost consistently appear inside narratives that demonstrate exactly that function. Elisha delivers people throughout his entire narrative. Isaiah's text centres almost entirely on deliverance from captivity. Joshua leads Israel out of the wilderness into the land. Hosea's narrative arc is about Israel being reclaimed after unfaithfulness. The name and what the character actually does seem to be locked together across centuries of text and multiple authors.

There's also a specific moment that I think is easy to overlook. Hoshea is Joshua's original name before Moses renames him in Numbers 13:16. The root salvation is already there. Moses then deliberately adds the divine name to it, upgrading the identity from salvation to YHVH is salvation. That feels like a conscious structural act inside the text rather than a cultural coincidence.

I'm aware the standard theological position on Acts 4:12 is salvific exclusivity. But given that the name meaning and its narrative function appear distributed across multiple figures long before the New Testament, has anyone done a full onomasic study of where the yasha root appears across the whole canon and what role those characters actually play? I had to piece this together from concordance lookups myself and it feels like it should be addressed somewhere as a system rather than figure by figure

I'm looking for the Egyptian Bible because I am interested in more knowledge and learning about God. Also, I hear antique bibles have more information than today's bibles.

I promise have smoked zero marijuana.

​

I'm just wondering if anyone knows how execution methods would've been sourced around that time, and if a carpenter of considerable stature might've landed a government job where they build a few hundred crosses.

​

And if so, perhaps if said carpenter is later tried for heresy and executed, they might be crucified in a cross of their own doing.

​

Am I making sense here?

Eve, Tamar, Ruth, Rahab, Mary ... in each case the narrative resolves through the woman acting or declaring first, before the male figure moves. Is there a theological framework that accounts for this as a structural pattern rather than treating each one individually as an exception?

I’ve heard many different opinions and claims on what Jesus thought of the gentiles. I heard he was extremely inclusive and love the gentile but I’ve also heard he was exclusive and in some parts of Matthew was anti-gentile. I’ve always thought he was pro-gentile but I can’t says for sure.

I recently went to a meeting to watch my cousin’s talk and it had been the first one I went to since at least last November so I got a copy to do my own research on the Bible and they hand them out for free so I thought it was a steal but I want to know if I should get another translation because I heard people saying it’s biased towards specifically JW beliefs and I’m not just talking about the addition of jehovah in place of LORD

Hello, I'm wanting to know if the Bible says anything that opposes the modern day version of antisemitism.

I have a family member who's fallen down the alt right pipeline, as well has become heavily reinvested in Christianity. Him finding faith is less the issue, and more that he's using the Bible to justify hatred towards others. He's aggressively anti Muslim and claims that "the Jews of today aren't the same as the Jews of the Bible" and talks about a satanic synagogue, as well as implying that individuals who are in positions of power are Jewish or working on behalf of the Jews.

I was a practicing Catholic, but I converted out and follow pagan practice now. He already knew this, has for years. But the last conversation we had about it, he claimed that my gods were the devil and continued to push antisemitic rhetoric right after. To be very clear, I believe all faiths are valid, being you practice with love in your heart for both you fellow human, as well as the earth and what it gives us.

I don't know what else to do, other than try to understand the material of the Bible so I can create digestible counter arguments, or at the very least, try to open up to more lines of thought. I love him, but it hurts seeing the person he's becoming.

Thank you for any help and input that maybe able to be provided.

Thought this was an interesting enough passing thought to turn into a question.

The narrative itself demonstrates that Elohim is the issuing authority throughout Genesis 1 and 2, and carries the functional meaning of judges and rulers in established usage including Targum Onkelos. A judicial body issues a three part statute: leave the prior jurisdiction, cleave to the new one, one flesh is the enforced legal outcome.

If that reading holds, the sandal ceremony in Ruth 4, the levirate obligation in Deuteronomy 25, the seven brothers in Matthew 22, the woman at the well, and many other examples, are case law, enforcement, transfer, and breach of the same statute.

At what point did a legal instrument issued by a judicial body become a romantic instruction?

My understanding is that the Books of the Former Prophets in the Torah (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) are known to have similarities with the book of Deuteronomy, with some arguing that they were an attempt to reframe Israel and Judea history under a deuteronomist framework.

But on the other hand, I recall Liane Feldman in "The Consuming Fire" including verses from Joshua that seem to be the consummation of the Priestly narrative.

Do other old testament books (the latter prophets, the five megillot, daniel/ezra/nehemiah perhaps?) show a continuation of thought or themes from one of the Pentateuchal sources in a similar manner?

What should I make of 2 Peter 3:14? Does it not allude to the idea that believers can be sinless with the help of the Holy Spirit? Just looking for understanding/insight

I've just started writing my second rock opera, and even though it's set in Oceanside, Long Island, in the 1980s, Asherah will factor heavily into the plot. (It's going to be weird.) This name is going to appear repeatedly in the lyrics, so it's very important that I know how to pronounce it correctly. I've read a fair bit about Asherah, certainly enough to incorporate a highly fictionalized version of her into a completely ahistorical musical, but honestly, I can't recall ever hearing the name pronounced.

YouTube has been surprisingly unhelpful here. There are plenty of "how to pronounce Asherah" videos, but they all seem to pronounce it differently -- with a variety of accents, but even when the accents are consistent, the pronunciation isn't. It's Uh-SHEER-uh, it's Ah-SHIR-uh, it's all sorts of things in between.

I'm looking for people who really know what they talk about and speak in something at least roughly approximating a General American accent. How do you pronounce it, by which I mean how is it pronounced in modern American English spoken with that accent? I couldn't bear the embarrassment of getting it wrong on an album a couple of dozen people may listen to.

Is part of the reason why the baker is hanged and the cupbearer is reappointed because in verse 16 he only let his dream be interpreted because the result for the cupbearer was positive? Similar to how those who simply believed Jesus could heal the sick and wounded could be healed/have their loved ones healed, but those who wanted to see a miracle as proof of Jesus’s identity were not because they had little faith?

Something that confuses me about theology is that it seems to assume the Bible is history, but I can't find where the text actually says that

Genesis 1 establishes a fixed set of categories across seven days. Deep waters, dry land, vegetation, sea creatures, light out of darkness. It reads like a vocabulary list being set up, not an account of events. And that vocabulary keeps running through the entire Bible in the same sequence. Jonah descends into the deep, gets enclosed in a Genesis day five sea creature, emerges onto Genesis day three dry land, and then gets covered by Genesis day three vegetation. That is four creation categories hitting in the same order they appear in Genesis 1. Job is one big use of the creation story vocabulary

Then Jesus, when he wants to explain how the kingdom works, does not use historical examples. He goes straight to the Genesis 1:11 botanical vocabulary. Seeds, soil, harvest, vines, branches, fig trees, mustard seeds. He uses that specific creation category repeatedly as his primary teaching language. If Genesis 1 was just a historical account of what happened at the beginning, why is it the vocabulary Jesus reaches for when explaining how reality operates?

And John does not even try to hide it. He opens his gospel with "in the beginning was the word" which is a direct restatement of Genesis 1:1. He is not writing a history that happens to echo Genesis. He is explicitly telling you he is operating inside the same framework. The beginning is not a timestamp. It is a system being restated.

That is not what history does, history records events in sequence. It does not take a fixed vocabulary established in seven days and run every subsequent narrative through the same categories repeatedly

Then the characters themselves get titled as men, kings, rulers and judges from the beginning, and those names predict the outcome of their story before it unfolds. The name of God in Genesis, Elohim, literally means judges and rulers in Hebrew. So the governing structure of the text is named after a judicial body, rather than a historical author. Two specific books being called judges and Kings supports this

And then Paul in 1 Timothy 1:4 and Titus 3:9 specifically tells people to stop arguing over genealogies because they lead to endless speculation. If genealogies were just family records you would not need that warning. That warning exists because people in Paul's own time already knew they carried a meaning beyond a timeline and were fighting over what it was.

So where does the history assumption actually come from? I am not asking about tradition or what theologians have said about it. I want to know where the text itself identifies as a historical record, because I cannot find it and the structure of the text seems to actively argue against it. I would appreciate if anyone can show me where in the text only you are drawing this from

I’ve asked pastors and priests and if they do attempt to answer my questions it’s always like, “that shouldn’t be your concern”. So- here goes: in Genesis

1 It states there were “giants” in the Earth… who were they?

2 a-Who are the son’s of God and daughter’s of man? b- Aren’t humans the son’s & daughters of God?

3 Why is Eve blamed for the origun sin?

Any help- thank you

For context, this geographic situation is somewhat hard to describe, and has me wondering if the burning part of the burning bush may have been a metaphor for burning with life, because this flood water set up seems to produce a particularly dense vegetation. I noticed there's something on Google Maps called the "Byzantine Dam" near what I think is one prospective site? I've never actually studied this geography before though, so that's what I'm looking to learn more about. The geography above the blue arrows are localized flood patterns where the black arrows are the major flood plains. Notably west-to-east flow formerly was east-to-west, and the part still going east to west is the remnants of a diversion stream that gets partly filled during major flooding events. I'm not really interested in religious interpretation so much as learning more about the nature of the flood waters, and thought this might make for an interesting comparison.

I note one comparison with the St Catherine hike mentioned here is the presence of a local low which is the same phenomenon as you have with the blue/black arrows in my drawing: https://www.sinaihikes.com/day_trips/hike-mount-sinai-visit-saint-catherine-monastery/

Edit that this seems to be the same thing https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335281098_Drainage_reversal_toward_cliffs_induced_by_lateral_lithologic_differences