Christian Thoughts

  Much ink had been spilled thus far over how, as narrated in Genesis 3, the fall of Adam and Eve resulted in sin marring God’s creation (which was originally described by Him  in Genesis 1:31  as “very good”).   Despite the headstrong efforts by feminists to white-wash Eve’s actions in the vicinity of the “tree [bearing fruit] desirable to make one wise” (Genesis 3:6), what has been authoritatively stated by Paul is “Adam was not deceived but the woman, being deceived, fell into transgression” (I Timothy 2:14) — reinforced by the L ord ’s ruling that “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception” and coupled with the divine injunction that “your husband shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16).   The intentional choice of the generic words “woman” and “husband” (in place of the individual names “Eve” and “Adam” respectively) clearly points to the general purview of both I Timothy 2:14 and Genesis 3:16 with the natural inference being that these two verses cannot regarded as f

  That Paul “stayed and worked with them [ viz Aquila and Priscilla] for by occupation they were tent-makers” (Acts 18:3) is an unassuming informational fact which certain Christian factions find rather  appealing .   Their liberal extrapolation of this particular verse has imaginatively led to various scenarios being mooted (and even embraced in some circles) based on the supposition that tent-making can prove to be quite lucrative.   The following serve as possible illustrative examples: ●        buoyed by the prospect of tent-making, a free-spirited missionary may be encouraged to venture abroad for some self-styled ministry there without church covering ●        a pastor need only minister to his flock on week-ends if he is pre-occupied with tent-making during week-days to procure income for living expenses ●        a church ought to found some form of tent-making side-business with the objective of ensuring a stable stream of revenue for funding overseas outreach or even ch

  Scoffers take delight in ridiculing the Bible for its astonishing narration of the great flood which prompted Noah, on God’s direction, to build an ark after the Lord had decided that “I Myself am bringing flood-waters on the earth to destroy … all flesh” (Genesis 6:17).   Unfortunately, even Christians have been known to subscribe to the local-flood hypothesis so as to avoid being labelled as gullible in accepting with blind faith that this well-known flood had actually covered the entire world.   Staunch believers in the historical occurrence of the world-wide flood invariably turn to the following (or related) verses as the basis for their conviction: (a)      according to the Lord ’s pre-flood decree, “everything that is on the earth shall die” (Genesis 6:17) (b)      after the onset of the flood which in due course covered the mountains, “all flesh died that moved on the earth” (Genesis 7:21) (c)      the authoritative conclusion states that “He destroyed all living t

  Revelation is the principal book in the Bible outlining what will happen during the so-called last days but it has to be pointed out that there are OT books containing end-times prophecies as well.   How should this particular NT book (with specific focus on one subject matter) be viewed in relation to those OT prophets who likewise discussed the end times (albeit among the various other themes also running throughout their respective books)?   Genesis discloses to humankind what occurred at the very beginning.   For completeness, the Bible has additionally incorporated Revelation to foretell how all proceedings will come to a climax.   Since sin tainted what God created at the outset, believers may feel defeatist had not the Almighty provided the re-assuring pronouncement that He has in place an outside-the-box plan to be implemented at the end: “the first heaven and the first earth will pass away” and there will be “a new heaven and a new earth” where “there shall be no more de