BIBLE QUESTIONS.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 145, 25 July 1914, Page 12

BIBLE QUESTIONS.

(Edited by "AQUILA.") Bible questions *ill be answered hert if sent to the Editor of this column, accompanied by the names and addresses of the senders. Q.—ls it not a fact that the first verse of Genesis and first verse of the 21st of Revelation, are both prophecy, in the future, alluding to the same creation! And does not the second verse in Genesis explain our present condition? "Without form and void" denotes chaos, no regulation, "and darkness was upon the face of the deep" typifies the gross ignorance now prevailing.—W.F.

A.—lt seems to me that the first vers* of Genesis is a statement of a fact long past, and has reference to the material world. The new creation that John saw was a prophetic vision of the distant future. For the rest I think it is better to take the plain and obvious meaning of the words than to seek for meanings in one's inner consciousness. Meanings such as you ■ suggest'would seem to imply the inspiration" "of the person who found them.

Q. —You have said discipline and the "crucifixion of the flesh" goes on in this life- Surely hell is going On also in this life, hand in hand, for what can be clearer manifestation of the phrase 1 ( gnashing of teeth,'' than the quarrelling that is now going on by our legislators in Wellington?—W.F. A.—But "weeping and wailing" is part of the passage, and I have not seen those lacryirtal manifestations reported from Wellington.

Q. —If the Bible is consistent, how can you reconcile the following:—"For wisdom is better than rubies, and all things that may be desired are riot to bo compared with it." —Prov. viii., 11. "For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth, knowledge increaseth sorrow."—Eccles. i., 18.—r BLB.M.

A.—We are not concerned to prove that odd fragments taken from different books, written by different people at different dates, and with different purposes in view, all dove-tail into' on© another. No one expects that who is not ridden by an untenable theory. At the same time both your passages axe perfectly true. Wisdom is the choicest possession, and yet, by its wider and deeper range it does take in more of the world's grief and sorrow than mere superficial shallowness.

Q. —Is there any document or contemporaneous writings Christian or fttherwise, which an account of the life" of Christ from the time he was twelve years old and the commencement-of his ministry? The Gb'spels are, of c6iirs% silent as to where he was and what he was doing during this time. —H.B.M. A.—l am not aware of any authentic document. There is, however; "The Gospel of the Infancy," which is absolutely ridiculous, and is supposed;to be a mere heretical .skit. It was'jjublished in Clarke's ';" Ante-Nicean Library,** about 50 years ago., I do-not ; khpw of any other issue of it. You will probably find an . account df it in some of ihe recent dictionaries edited by t)r Hastings.

Q. —Would you please say in -what sense the words '' Petros'' and . ' 'Cephas'' were used by Christ- in. the passage, '' Thou art Peter, on this rock, etc.''— H.B.M.

A.—The words in Matthew xvi. are: '' Thou art Petros, and on this. petra will I build my church;" The name Cephas does not occur in it. You*'are aware that ihe ancient Church held that the meaning was that Peier was the petra on which Christ would build His Church. Protestants contend that the perta was the confession that Peter had just uttered, namely, "Thou are theChrist, the son of the living God.". Naturally I do not wish for a discussion on this passage on which so many of our fellow citizens feel strongly.

Q. —Does the following passage refer to the King of Babylon? "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! . How art thou cut down from the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" (Isaiah' xiv. 12). —F.E.

A. —There can be little doubt that passage refers to the King of Babylon. The idea that it refers to the fall* 3}f 'Satan would wrest the passage away from its context entirely; besides, Satan was'not a "Lucifer" or "light btarer." It may be that the poet, in this fine outburst, conceived of the 1 • ing in his glory as like the Morning Star, and compares his falling to the falling of the morning star. :Orit may be- that as ancient hero-kings looked for defication as demigods, that the fall of Satan had taken form in the days of Isaiah the poetical reference might have been to that fall. But Satan was not called Lucifer till the Middle Ages, when the theory was that your text and Christ's saying, "I beheld Satan fall as lightning from heaven," referred to the. same event, and it was from that erroneous belief that Satan came to be called Lucifer.

q.—As 1 Cor. 15, 51-54 teaches that immortality shall be put on at the apI earing of* Christ, i£ there any ground for the assertion that life persists after the death of the body t—P. E.

A. —Your exegesis of the passage, "The itead shall be raised incorruj.table; and we (who may be alive) shall bo changed. For this corruptable must put on ' incorrupt.on and this mortal shall put on immortality," is highly cuestionable. The '' putting on'' seems to refer to the "we." Perhaps there should be some clearing of the ground as to the resurrection body, as distinct from the spirit of man, before the doctrine von mention could be discussed with the understanding. It is usually thought that such passages as 2 Cor. x. 5. 6, where St. Paul says he would rather be "absent from the body and l).- present with the Lord," shows that the Aposfcle believed in the interruptec" life. But I.have already indicated my unwillingness to write* treatises. I invite questions on the Bible rather tuaa or opinions and doctrines.