Good question. First, let us clarify that it was not an apple that Adam and Eve ate, but fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17). It is true that God knew that man would sin before He ever made the world for salvation in Christ was planned from eternity (Eph. 1:4; 3:11; 2 Tim. 1:9). God’s “problem” in creating creatures in His image was that such creatures were to be governed by choices rather than instinct. If there was no opportunity for disobedience it could not be said that man had free will. He would be like a robot programmed to only do right. The minimum number of laws to provide opportunity for man to choose his way rather than God’s way is one, and that is all He gave.
If there was no opportunity for disobedience it could not be said that man had free will.
The command was easily understood {Adam was told it by God and successfully communicated it to Eve (Gen. 2:17; 3:2,3)} and not unduly restrictive (Gen. 2:9,16). One could say that the arrangement was stacked in favour of man’s obedience, but alas, the rest, as they say, is history. Man chose to exercise his free-will in disobedience and so sin entered the world and all we that have followed Adam and Eve have done likewise.

No, we do not. When Jesus said of the bread, “This is my body” and of the fruit of the vine, “this is my blood” He was using simple metaphors. Likewise when He said “I am the way” He wasn’t saying He was a piece of pavement. When He said “I am the door” He wasn’t intimating that He was a timber frame covered with sheeting, anymore than He was a flame because He said “I am the light of the world”.

These emblems are simple reminders of the body and blood of Christ, and Paul tells us it is “bread which we break”, not flesh (1 Cor. 10:16). As to drinking blood, you might recall Peter’s revulsion to eating things that violated Jewish dietary laws as late as Acts 10. These laws also included not eating blood (Lev. 17:11). If for the ten or so years from the beginning of the church till the events in Acts 10 Peter thought he drank blood every first day of the week, he would never have drunk it. This could be said of all Jewish members of the early church, and note that Acts 21:25 records that Gentile members of the church were to be aware of Jewish sensibilities in this area.

Yes and no. That sounds like a Politician’s answer but let me explain. There are no mistakes in the original books written by the inspired penmen. They wrote the Word of God under direction of the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16,17 2 Pet. 1:21). However, the process of inspiration does not include the copying process that propogated the Scriptures. The scribes who copied the manuscripts took great pains to copy accurately, but, being human and fallible, they made mistakes.

The good news is that with the high number of extant manuscripts (more than any other ancient writing), the variations are readily identified and an accurate text made available.

Because that is the meaning of the word. In fact, it renders the question as “Why do you insist immersion must be by immersion?” “Baptism” is an anglisised form of the Greek word baptizo which means to immerse, to dip. It is unfortunate that the translators chose to invent a new English word rather than simply translate it. This was done out of fear of offending those who already were sprinkling, whereas they should have feared God, not man.

To pour, to sprinkle, and to dip are three different actions and have three different words to designate them. For example in Lev.14:15,16 the priest was to pour (cheo) some oil into his left hand and he was to dip (bapto) his right finger into the oil in his left hand and sprinkle (rhantizo) the oil seven times before the Lord. Specific actions designated by specific words. Does man have the right to change a specific command of God?

John also was baptising at Aenon near Salim, because water was plentiful there, and people were coming and being baptised

John 3:23 ESV

But one does not have to be a Greek scholar to know this. John 3:23 tells us that John (the immerser) baptised at a certain place because there was much water there. Why did he need much water? Why a bucketful a day would have sufficed if he merely sprinkled. Why did the Eunuch and Philip both go down into the water (Acts 8:38) when he could have used his water bottle? Rom. 6:4 says baptism involves a burial and a resurrection, while the next verse describes it as a planting.

The church of Christ, by virtue of its desire to conform to biblical teachings, adheres to the teaching that has characterised Christianity for the last two millennia. By that I mean we do not conform to modern fads, but maintain the New Testament position on sexuality. The Lord taught that a person’s identity is not defined by their penchants or desires, but that the Lord made us male or female (Matt.19:4). It is a biological defining, not one by sexual desires. Where would this end? – I could define myself as a meat-eating, vegan, football-hating, Holden-loving, tax-cheating, foul-mouthed, cross-dressing paedophile, but what would any of that prove? Would that make me a unique gender of human being? Could I assume that my proclivities all had the approval of God?

Christ goes on to prescribe the boundaries God put around sexuality. God invented safe-sex and said a man should leave his father and mother and marry a woman and in that union there is the right for the “one flesh” of sexual co-habitation (Matt.19:5,6). Anything outside of that arrangement is not part of God’s design, to which other scriptures consistently testify (eg. 1 Cor.6:9-20; 7:1,2 Rom. 1:24-27 et.al.)

The concept of same-sex marriage is quite contrary to God’s design and does not have His approval, Government legislation notwithstanding. It has been interesting and appalling to see the drift of our nation over the years as Biblical illiteracy has increased. For the first half of my life things like adultery, fornication, homosexuality were never sanctioned, even regarded as criminal offences, but for the second half there has been an erosion of behavioural standards and even the promotion of such. But the Scriptures are unchanged, God has not changed, and so our position is unchanged.

No, because by this reasoning one could say that one is a child of God before he believes since one is led by the Spirit to believe, just as much as He leads people to be baptised. The Spirit has chosen to lead men by His word (the Bible), and when we obey all that He says we must do to be saved, then we can we claim to be led by the Spirit and children of God. If we refuse to do what He says (either wholly or partially) we cannot claim to be led by Him.

It has to do with how words are used in various contexts. Sometimes the word “believe” is used to describe an individual act or step in becoming a Christian and others acts or steps are mentioned in connection with it and are said to follow it. Consider the following examples:

He that believes and is baptised shall be saved (Mark 16:16)
Many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptised (Acts 18:8)
And many that believed came, and confessed, and showed their deeds (Acts 19:18)
Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on Him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him (John 12:42)

But there are times when the word is used as a synechdoche – that is where a part is substituted for the whole or vice versa. (In fact Mark 16:16 also incorporates the idea of a synechdoche when it simply gives the first and last step in the salvation process, but it in no way is denying the need for repentance or confession.) For example in 1 Tim. 4:12 Paul tells Timothy to be an example of the believers, and the term is used as a synonym for Christians. There is a dead faith and a living faith (Jas.2). A dead faith, though it incorporates belief, will not save (Jas. 2:19,20), but a true believer will not only mentally assent to Christ but respond in obedience to what he believes. A simple syllogism will illustrate the need for a recognition of the different uses of belief.
Everyone who believes is born of God (1 John 5:1)
The demons believe (Jas. 2:19)
Therefore the demons are born of God!

Now if we will not accept this conclusion who are we going to contradict, John or James? The point is we don’t have to contradict either but understand that John in 1 John 5:1 is using “believe” as a term to indicate one who has obeyed the gospel of the Lord they believe in, whereas the demons have not.

From Eve who was so named because she was the mother of all living (Gen. 3:20). The author of Genesis, Moses, covers some 1600 years in the first six chapters. The first two chapters covers one week, while the third chapter covers one event on one day! So in writing the history of the early world Moses has to use an abbreviated synopsis, highlighting crucial and pivotal events, while omitting much. Cain could possibly have been already married by the time we read of the murder of his brother. Of necessity his wife would have been a sister, of whom we know nothing (Gen. 5:4).
The short answer is “nowhere, it is still here”. There is enough water present to cover the earth kilometres deep if the earth was a smooth sphere. If the flood was accompanied by mountainous uplifting and the corresponding depression of rifts and valleys, which is evident, then the topography of the pre-flood world was completely different, with lower mountains and shallower valleys making the flood possible. (suggestion: do some reading about the flood in the available creation science publications)
I believe they are. Now its true that the word “dinosaur” is not found in the Bible, one reason being it is a word that was not coined till the latter part of the nineteenth century and the old standard Bibles were produced in English before that time (The King James version etc.). Incidentally the word ‘dinosaur’ means “terrible lizard”. Job lived at a very early time and God asked him to consider a creature called “Behemoth” which God uses to show Job how small he is in the scheme of things (Job 40:15-24). It was obviously a very impressive beast with bones like bars of brass and iron (v. 18) and some have made suggestions that this was an elephant but does an elephant have a tail like a cedar tree? (v.17). It is also described as being “chief of the ways of God” (v.19), suggesting that it was top of the list in the creatures God made and certainly the remains of certain types of dinosaurs indicate they were impressive creatures.
The figure of the “keys of the kingdom” signifies power to enter into the Kingdom, even as keys give us the power to open doors. Thus the keys are representative of the authority to be granted to the apostles that would enable people to enter into the kingdom. They exercised this authority when they, as witnesses of the risen Lord, preached the gospel which resulted in people being saved and made citizens of the Kingdom of God (Col. 1:13,14). The same process made people members of the church (Acts 2:47), and thus we come to the conclusion the concept of the church is used interchangeably with the kingdom of Christ. Therefore you could say that the “keys” were used to open the church. In fact, if this were not so, we would have to accuse the apostles of “picking the lock” of the church with the keys of the kingdom.
No. Acts 2:4 says “ they (the apostles) began to speak with other languages, as the Spirit gave them utterance”. The miracle was in the speaking, not in the hearing. There was a gift in the early church known as the gift of tongues (languages) which enabled those possessing that gift to speak in foreign languages they had never learned (I Cor. 12:10,28). One could hardly be said to possess that gift if the Holy Spirit actually performed a miracle of hearing on those listening to a gospel message. The apostle Paul claimed to speak more languages miraculously than others (1 Cor. 14:18) but how could he claim this if the Holy Spirit worked a miracle of hearing in such cases? He counsels the foolishness of speaking in tongues in a regular assembly where people couldn’t understand (1 Cor. 14:23), and points out the need for an interpreter when someone speaks in a language that people can’t understand (1 Cor. 14:19; 27,28). Again, none of this makes sense if the gift of tongues was really a miracle of hearing.

The Lord teaches that we are to pray for the sick (James 5:14-16), but as with all prayer, it is the Lord’s prerogative as to how He will respond to the request. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that He will heal every person we pray for on every occasion. A moment’s reflection on the fact that it is appointed unto all men once to die (Heb. 9:27), will lead us inevitably to the conclusion that not all prayers for healing will be answered in the affirmative. God does not promise to heal anyone miraculously, or to heal every person we pray for. We must do what we can medically for the sick and pray submissively that God’s will be done.