What is the Biblical basis for saying that God can annihilate human souls?

First, the idea of the immortality of the soul comes from the Greek dualistic view of body and soul as separate, with a mortal body and an immortal soul.
Immortality belongs to God alone (I Tim. 6:16) in the sense of before creation and on to eternity.
God offers eternal life (John 3:15–16; 10:28; 17:2; Rom. 2:7; 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:42f; 50, 54; Gal. 6:8; 1 John 5:11).
Many will not be saved - look at Mt 7:13-14
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
The "great white throne judgment" in Rev 20:11-15 tells about the second death.

11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it,
from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found
for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before
the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is
the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were
written in the books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up
the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which
were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to
their deeds. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.
This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And
if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life,
he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Calling this the second death is a strong indication that the unsaved do not have an eternal existence of eternal torture.
The Old Testament speaks of destruction as the "reward for wickedness"
(look here for a more complete treatment).
The New Testament gives many pictures of destruction.
Look at James 4:12

12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy;
but who are you who judge your neighbor?

Here it seems like salvation or destruction are the only options.
Here are a few scriptures that speak of destruction

Psalm 1:6 ... but the way of the ungodly shall perish
Psalm 37:20   But the wicked shall perish... they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.
Psalm 92:7    ... shall be destroyed forever
Matthew 10:28b    Rather, fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
John 3:16 ... whosoever believeth in him should not perish (Greek: destroyed)
Romans 6:23   For the wages of sin is death …
Philippians 3:19  whose end is "destruction"
2 Thessalonians 1:9   who shall be punished with everlasting destruction ...
Hebrews 10:39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition (Greek: destruction); but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
James 4:12a   There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy.
Revelation 20:14  This is the second death...

Greg Boyd has put together a list of scriptures here.
A good book on the subject is
E.W. Fudge & R.A. Peterson, "Two views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialog," Inter Varsity Press, (2000)
In this book we read . . .

"The fact is that the Bible does not teach the traditional view of final punishment. Scripture nowhere suggests that God is an eternal torturer. It never says the damned will writhe in ceaseless torment or that the glories of heaven will forever be blighted by the screams from hell. The idea of conscious everlasting torment was a grievous mistake, a horrible error, a gross slander against the heavenly Father, whose character we truly see in the life of Jesus of Nazareth." (p. 21)


Are 'treasures' all Earthly goods or wealth?

If I read these Scriptures correctly What Jesus considers treasure to be is the things you value the most.
Matthew 12:35  KJV

A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

Matthew 6:21  KJV

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

For Satan as for many people today their treasure is power and or authority:
Luke 4:6  KJV

And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

How Man treasures power is portrayed in the exchange between Pilate and Jesus:
John 19:10 and 11  KJV

10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
11  Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
Even today look at politics and how so many are willing to risk their monetary fortunes to gain a position in Government, and the amount of money some contributors are willing to donate in hopes of gaining political influence.

In answer to your question in my feeble mind as far as the Kingdom goes it probably  has to do with whatever it is that you desire more than obedience to God.


What if we were not tempted by the devil but rather, we failed God's test?

In the great Intercessory Prayer Christ prays that God will keep those disciples given to him and any that believe on their word un-spotted from the world then in verse 23 he says something crucial to remember about God's motivation vs. the devils motivation

  (KJV) John 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved me.

What God does He does out of love, in fact as we read here He does it out of the same love that He had for the Savior. If God tests us and we fail that test, because He loves us the Savior has already provided a way to say "I'm sorry I will try harder next time." Also when God is testing us He will support us and give us strength to make it through that test (great example of this is David and Goliath). If we have enough faith. This is a key difference between God and the devil. God will always love and support us, while the devil will get us to follow him but never offer support; and once he has us chained he will abandon us. Something that God would never do.

So in summery the answer to what becomes of us is simple. Its what we choose to let happen. God will love us still and if we decide to follow Him despite the trial and our perceived failure of that trial, then a way is provided for us to do so. If we decide not to, well then we have chosen to serve the devil and he will bind us just as surly as if we had sinned. Because in the end turning from God is a sin.


Why use Yeshua instead of Jesus?
Besides the simplest and most obvious reason for doing so is because we can, I will give you the reason why I do this myself when I am alone and not hindered by being overheard by others. But I will say this much. One of the reasons I do it is because of devotion to the name of Jesus. Now let me explain where I am going with this from time to time.
The claim that modern Hebrew (or Aramaic) is not the same as the Hebrew (or Aramaic) used at the time of Christ for the Hebraic name of Jesus remains simply on a theoretical level. Some dispute that claim.

Some of rabbinical sources comment on the reasons for the missing ayin from Yeshu, as opposed to the Hebrew Bible Yeshua and Yehoshuah... A tradition states that the shortening to Yeshu relates to the Y-SH-U of the yimach shemo "may his name be obliterated.” Against this David Flusser suggested that the name Yeshu itself was "in no way abusive," but "almost certainly" a Galilean dialect form of Yeshua. But E.Y. Kutscher showed that the `ayin was still pronounced in Galilee, refuting a thesis by Paul Kahle. - Yeshua

Those who employ the name of Jesus in either Aramaic or Hebrew are not Judaizing the name of Our Lord, but pronouncing his Holy Name as such in devotional manner or in a Christian Rite that frequently employs either Hebrew or Aramaic in their liturgies.
Being a Catholic of the Latin Rite and greatly influenced by the Church’s traditions, I will explain my own motivation based on such.
The Catholic Maronite Rite uses Aramaic (Syriac) as a liturgical language and the name of Jesus in their Rite is Yeshua. I occasionally worship in this Eastern Catholic Rite.
Many of us can recall Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ in which all the dialogues were done in the languages employed at the time of Our Lord.
When I first watched this movie I decided to ask a friend who has a minor in biblical languages if he could recite in Aramaic the Our Father, the Ave Maria, the Gloria Patri along with the phrase begone Satan on a CD. The reason was that I could say the rosary in Aramaic, the language which Our Lord spoke. It is a purely devotional aspect that I have incorporated into my prayer life. What more needs to be said?
There are many other factors that one can incorporate into this response, such as:

The Catholic Church acknowledges Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic (also known as liturgical Syriac) as being  sacred languages.
Our Lord spoke the common language (Aramaic) of the people in his day and age, but recited Hebrew in the synagogue when he read Sacred Scripture out loud.
Pope Pius XII allowed the use of Hebrew in the Tridentine Mass for Catholics living in Israel for obvious reasons. (Sorry folks, Latin was not the only language employed at Mass prior to the Second Vatican Council in the Roman Rite.)
The Maronite Catholic Rite may employ either Aramaic (Syriac) or Arabic in their liturgy, but the words of consecration must be in Aramaic, the very language Christ spoke at the Last Supper.

Although pronouncing the name of Jesus in any particular language has much merit. Pronouncing it in either Hebrew or Aramaic adds something special in my mind. How many times did Our Lord heard his most holy Mother Mary call him affectionately by his name: Yeshua.
Here are some YouTube video examples (dialect may very):

Shlomlech Ave Maria Hail Mary in Aramaic
Shlom Lech Maryam (Hail Mary) in Aramaic with Arabic,and English script ماجدة الرومي
Lord's Prayer (Aramaic)
Abun d'bashmayo (Aramaic) The Lord's prayer
Musical Aramaic rendition of the Our Father that moved the pope in Georgia
The Words of Consecration in the Maronite Mass الكلام الجوهريّ في القدّاس المارونيّ
Maronite Words of Consecration

Whether or not we pronounce the name of Jesus as Yeshua or not is unimportant to most, but for some it brings us closer to the historical Christ in his day and age, in a loving traditional way of speaking.
Holy is the name of Jesus ישועה "yeshua" forever in Hebrew or Aramaic forever!
Addendum:

East Syriac Ishoʕ
Yeshuuʕ or Ishoʕ, the Syriac name of Jesus
Aramaic and Classical Syriac render the pronunciation of the same letters as ܝܫܘܥ yeshuuʕ (yešuʕ) /yeʃuʕ/ and ܝܫܘܥ ishoʕ (išoʕ) /iʃoʕ/. The Aramaic Bibles and the Peshitta Syriac preserve these same spellings. Current scholarly consensus posits that the NT texts were translated from the Greek, but this theory is not supported directly at least by the name for Jesus, which is not a simple transliteration of the Greek form as would otherwise be expected, as Greek did not have an "sh" [ʃ] sound, and substituted [s]; and likewise lacked and therefore omitted the final ‘ayin sound [ʕ]. Moreover, Eusebius (early fourth century) reports that Papius (early second century) reports that Jesus's disciple Matthew wrote a gospel "in the Hebrew language". (Note: Scholars typically argue the word "Hebrew" in the New Testament refers to Aramaic; however, others have attempted to refute this view.) The Aramaic of the Peshitta does not distinguish between Joshua and Jesus, and the Lexicon of William Jennings gives the same form ܝܫܘܥ for both names. The Hebrew final letter ayin ע is equivalent to final ܥ in Classical Syriac and East Syriac and West Syriac. It can be argued that the Aramaic speakers who used this name had a continual connection to the Aramaic-speakers in communities founded by the apostles and other students of Jesus, thus independently preserved his historical name Yeshuuʕ and the Eastern dialectical Ishoʕ. Those churches following the East Syriac Rite still preserve the name Ishoʕ. - Yeshua (Wikipedia)

Other articles of interest may be read if desired:

In which language did Pontius Pilate communicate with Jesus?
What language did Jesus speak?
What language did Jesus speak? The pope and Israel’s prime minister disagree.


God has spoken to me in the past

with an audible external voice,
with a distinct voice inside my mind,
by a vision in my minds-eye,
by opening my eyes to a song or scripture I was singing or reading in a way I had not seen before,
through Godly council and direct prophecy of other trustworthy believers,
by my conscience, and, of course
via systematic study of his Scripture which guides my life-system.

These are listed in order of (exponential) increasing frequency, and are just what I've personally experienced.


Use of "the LORD" in Old Testament names

When the monks translated the King James version, they considered the name of God (yehôvâh) to be so Holy that they would not translate יהוה to the word yehôvâh; instead they inserted LORD in its place. They used all capital letters as a form of honoring the Deity.

Later translations which bore heavily on the King James translation also used that capitalized word in place of  Jehovah, YHWH, God, Elohim, YAHWEH as we find in some translations.

Here are some examples:

  (ASV)  And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

  (Darby)  And Jehovah Elohim formed Man, dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul.

  (ESV)  then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

  (HRB) And YAHWEH Elohim formed the man from the dust of the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living soul.

  (ISV)  So the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground, breathed life into his lungs, and the man became a living being.

  (KJV-BRG)  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

  (LITV)  And Jehovah God formed the man out of dust from the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

  (MKJV)  And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Other translations, as you can see, used other terms.

The word LORD, then, is a substitute word, which when used in the King James version was not a connotation associated with the Supreme being, as it is now.


Where does Taizé Community phrase, “Stay With Me” come from in the bible?

With regard to the Taizé Community song, “Stay With Me,” you made reference to Matthew 26:36-34 which describes the events in the garden of Gethsemane on the night our Lord was betrayed and arrested.  Jesus, knowing what lay ahead of him, pleaded with three of his disciples to stay with him and keep watch with him.  But they fell asleep.  They did not realise that Jesus would be taken from them and that the time was short.
Jesus himself was left alone, utterly forsaken by his Father in heaven, because he had to take upon himself the sins of the world.  His suffering is almost incomprehensible to us because we can only begin to imagine the mental anguish he endured, alone on that instrument of torture, knowing he had become sin.  Yet, because he was faithful to the bitter end, and did the will of his Father in heaven, we have hope – hope of the resurrection and of life eternal:

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life (1 John 5:13).

Because Christ is the righteousness of God, we who have faith in him and who obey him can take hold of this promise:

Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.  So we say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid.  What can man do to me?” (Deuteronomy 31:5-6 and Psalm 118: 6-7, quoted in Hebrews 13:5)

Jesus asks us to stay awake and keep watch.  The time is short.  If Christ Jesus is our partner, we can be confident that he will be there for us when we're unable to help ourselves.
You ask: Is this too powerful of an image for young people, and parents when contemplating consumer relationships of the fallout of the sexual revolution?  Well, the image of the Son of Man betrayed into the hands of sinners (Matthew 26:45) reminds us that our sins nailed him to that cross and that we must repent, turn around and follow him.  There is no other Saviour.


Where does the communication between God and Satan take place?

Luke 1:19 implies that angels are fully capable of being in the presence of God.

  The angel said to him, "I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God,
  and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news.

Satan, as an angel, would thus be able to commune with God in such a fashion.


What is the difference between Protestantism vs Protestants?

"Protestantism" is the name of a movement. "Protestants" are people who are part of that movement. It's the same relationship as between the words "Catholicism" and "Catholics". Catholics are the people who are part of Catholicism.

The problem is that your definition of Protestants is far too narrow. Protestants don't pray to Mary (mostly - there are a few exceptions) but it's not the most important thing about them - there are many other differences between them and Catholics too - their beliefs about the authority of the church, the place of the sacraments, the theology of the priesthood are just a few of many examples. It should also be pointed out the Protestantism is incredibly diverse and there is almost nothing that is unquestionably true of all Protestants except that they are not Catholic (or Orthodox, whose followers are also considered not Protestant).


What evidence do we have today about Christian groups not represented at the first four ecumenical councils?

The Nestorians are a good example for the latter two councils. There were a few attendees from the non-Greek east, groups that would later be called Nestorians. There was at least two, Jacob of Nisibis and another bishop named John. The eastern church "officially" accepted Nicea in 410 at the council of Isaac though the Nestorian schism happened soon after. But I guess nobody doubts the existence of the now-called Nestorian church during the time. Some of their writings survive and I'd recommend a reading of Moffett's "Christianity in Asia".

If I recall correctly, it is still too early for the Indian Christians to be associated very closely with the churches later called "Nestorian". Perhaps they are as old as Thomas. One tradition says it was Bartholomew rather than Thomas. It is reported that when Pantaenus went to India in the second century from Egypt he found Christians there. So there is probably an old tradition there, but as far as I know none of theme made it to the ecumenical councils.

The Chinese churches probably did not yet exist at the time of the first councils.

Keep in mind that groups east of the Roman Empire might have had troubles at times traveling to councils in the west. The Romans and Persians were on and off again at war, which would have hurt the communication lines a bit I'm sure, even if travel wasn't completely stopped.

If you go further west, there are traditions of Christianity reaching England in the second century, though as far as I know it didn't really thrive till much later (but I could be wrong on that). But if there are groups that far west, it is less likely that they would have made it to an ecumenical council.

We know the Marcionites existed, even after the death of Marcion. As far as I know, they had no presence at the councils and none of their writings survive.

Some lump them the Marcionites in with the Christian gnostics (and not all gnostics would have attached themselves to Christianity), but it might just be best to say there were a number of different types of gnostic groups. We have evidence of various gnostic groups because of polemics against them by the early fathers. If you haven't read Irenaeus, you can see a variety of gnostic groups attacked there. Since the discoveries of the Nag Hammadi documents we also have evidence of gnostics in their own words. You can also see some material on the gnostics in the early Christian historians.

There are also the Ebionites, who were a group of law-following Christians that some would say are akin to what people think of when they think "Judaizer". They were still around to a certain degree during the councils but as far as I know did not attend and no writings survive.

The Arians were around during the councils but they attended...and were ultimately condemned. So they don't really fit your question, but I figured I would mention them anyway.

So if you want to read for yourself from the groups that were eventually considered heretics by the orthodox, you are going to have trouble finding primary source texts to read. Most of what we have are from their opponents, which we can't assume always portray their opponents fairly, even if some (like myself) think they were right in deeming the ideas unorthodox (well...at least I think they were mostly right)


For those who view Israel typologically, what is the significance of the 12 tribes?

Certain numbers had symbolic significance to the people of that era. Numbers like 7 and 12 had connotations of wholeness or completeness. (Not completely unlike modern-ish phrases like going the "whole 9 yards"). Bible numbers

The 12 tribes were established from the 12 sons of Israel/Jacob, who was himself the son of Isaac, who was the promised son of Abraham, who was the "father" of faith.

The most obvious interpretation of the symbolism then is that all sons of faith in the promise will receive an inheritance. As explained by Paul in Romans 4:16,

  "That’s why the inheritance comes through faith, so that it will be on
  the basis of   God’s grace. In that way, the promise is secure for all
  of Abraham’s descendants, not just for those who are related by Law
  but also for those who are related by the faith of Abraham, who is the
  father of all of us."

Paul indicates the symbolism was to preserve the truth of salvation being available to all sons of faith the promise of salvation through Christ, and completely unrelated to ethnic race or culture (as the Jews mistakenly believed).


Veracity of Carte Blanche in The Three Muskateers

The concept of carte blanche goes back at least to Roman law, from which it was received into early medieval European civil and canon law. 1, 2 The basic idea is that someone with authority (A) can choose a delegate (B) to represent them, with "full powers" meaning that A agrees in advance to be bound by whatever B decides to do. B may well be given more specific instructions, and in any case the grant of authority does not mean that B is allowed to harm A's interests with impunity. B is only meant to do what A would have done, had A been present. The concept was known in the jurisprudence of France, as well as in the Roman Catholic Church, so Richelieu is certainly covered either way. In our days, we encounter the concept when ambassadors are described as "plenipotentiary", with the same sense of them being delegates of their head of state. But note that in the religious context, such delegation is still only ever intended to mean that B represents A's interests. If A is a bishop, B does not gain any episcopal powers; Papal legates are not Popes themselves; etc.
In his time, the term in French was usually applied to military orders, and indeed Richelieu himself granted carte blanche to his generals (or relayed that of the king) on several occasions.

We see nothing to do other than to give you carte blanche; the king leaves you free to attack anywhere that seems good to you. [...] For I repeat once more to you that the King leaves you carte blanche.
Nous ne voyons de loin autre chose à faire qu'à vous donner la carte blanche; le roy vous laisse libre d'attaquer telle place que bon vous semblera. [...] Car je vous redis encore une fois que le roy vous laisse la carte blanche. 3

Within the context of the novel, it is Richelieu's civil power which is being invoked. When he gives the letter to Milady (chapter 44), the idea is to give her immunity from the criminal law, although it is written in more general terms. Their conversation mentions the Bastille prison, but not purgatory. It's true that when our heroes come into possession of the letter (chapter 47), Aramis describes it as an "absolution" from all rules. This is an echo of his "confession" conversation with d'Artagnan in chapter 26, where the latter had joked "I'll give you absolution in advance" (i.e., before hearing the story), and Aramis responded "Don't joke about holy things, my friend". 4 Although Aramis instinctively uses religious language, there's no real sense that the letter involves Richelieu's religious authority, in the way that the musketeers make use of it.
If the cardinal had intended to write a letter granting absolution (or remittance of temporal punishment) to the bearer, he was exceeding his powers in several ways. It is true that as a bishop, he had the right to issue indulgences to people under his authority or in his diocese, just as the Pope could do so for people anywhere. We could argue that Milady and the musketeers all count as such, even if the letter itself is written in a more general way. But this document does not meet the well-established criteria for the validity of indulgences, or for penitence in general. Principally, you can't be absolved from a sin that you are intending to commit, but haven't done yet; you are not free from "attachment to sin". Compare Dante in Inferno 27.118-120 (Longfellow's translation of 1867):

For who repents not cannot be absolved,
Nor can one both repent and will at once,
Because of the contradiction which consents not.5

In the specific instance, Richelieu could never absolve Milady of murder before she actually did it, no matter what he wrote down in relation to her temporal punishment. Finally, sacramental absolution (for the other "bearers") cannot happen by means of a letter, as the priest and penitent are required to be in the same place for confession.

1. Consent, Coercion, and Limit: The Medieval Origins of Parliamentary Democracy, Arthur P. Monahan (McGill-Queen's University Press, 1987); section 3.1.C, p121ff on plena potestas.
2. Studies in Medieval legal thought: Public law and the state, 1100-1322, Gaines Post (Princeton University Press, 1964).
3. Lettres, instructions diplomatiques et papiers d'Etat du Cardinal de Richelieu, Avenel (Imprimerie nationale de Paris, 1853). Letter to Richelieu's nephew La Meilleraye, 17 May 1639: Volume 6, pp354-356. Found from a citation in Richelieu's Army: War, Government and Society in France, 1624-1642, David Parrott (Cambridge University Press, 2004), p136
4. My translation; original dialogue is "Et moi, je vois donne l'absolution d'avance, vous voyez que je suis bon homme. / Ne plaisantez pas avec les choses saintes, mon ami."
5. Ch'assolver non si può chi non si pente, / né pentere e volere insieme puossi / per la contradizion che nol consente.


Did the Jews think it was immoral to have leprosy?

Jews did not necessarily think it was immoral to have leprosy, but most scholars and Biblical commentaries agree that it was a common belief among the Jewish people of Jesus' day that leprosy, as well as disease and disability in general, was caused by sin.
Old Testament evidence
In the Old Testament, there are a number of passage that say doctors are of little value:

As for you, you whitewash with lies; worthless physicians are you all. (Job 13:4, ESV)
In the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa was diseased in his feet, and his disease became severe. Yet even in his disease he did not seek the Lord, but sought help from physicians. And Asa slept with his fathers, dying in the forty-first year of his reign. (II Chronicles 16:12-13)

Instead, healing comes from prayer to God:

If there is famine in the land, if there is pestilence or blight or mildew or locust or caterpillar, if their enemies besiege them in the land at their gates, whatever plague, whatever sickness there is, whatever prayer, whatever plea is made by any man or by all your people Israel, each knowing his own affliction and his own sorrow and stretching out his hands toward this house, (2 Chronicles 6:28-29)
In those days Hezekiah became sick and was at the point of death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die; you shall not recover.’”  Then Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the Lord... Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears. Behold, I will heal you. (II King 20:1-2,5)

Psalms 110, brings together these idea nicely:

Some were fools through their sinful ways, and because of their iniquities suffered affliction; they loathed any kind of food, and they drew near to the gates of death. Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress. He sent out his word and healed them (v17-21)

Here, "fools" are afflicted with illness because of their sinfulness and are cured when they ask God for help.
Likewise, literature of the Ancient Near East usually attribute illness either to sin or black magic.1
New Testament evidence
In Jesus' time, we have the example of this attitude in John 9:1-2:

As [Jesus] passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

The idea that illness and disability were caused by sin is so ingrained that Jesus' Jewish disciples assume that being born blind must be the result of sin.  They don't even consider the possibility that his disability was not caused by sin.  Similarly, the healing of the paralytic in Luke 5:17-30 (which immediately follows the leprosy healing cited in the question) carries a strong connotation that sin and disability were related in the Jewish mindset.  In this passage, Jesus first tells the man his sins are forgiven, but the crowd is not convinced so Jesus proceeds to heal the man. Thus, Jesus is playing off their (false) belief that the man was crippled because of his sin.
Further evidence
The Talmud also supports the idea that this was a common understanding among the Jewish people.  For example, b. shabbat 55a states "there is no death without sin and there is no suffering without iniquity".  Indeed, Genesis Rabbah 63:6 supports the idea that sin can occur before birth.  In this passage, Rabbi Yonhanan interprets the story of Jacob and Esah "this one ran to kill this one and this one ran to kill this one [in the womb]".
tsara'ath (leprosy) - especially linked to sin
In regard to צָרָ֫עַת/tsara'ath (usually translated leprosy, although the symptoms don't closely match those of leprosy) specifically, the illness usually develops after a person attempts to challenge authority, a strong indication that it is the result of a specific sin.  For example, after Miriam challenged Moses (Numbers 12:10–15) and after Gehazi disobeyed Elisha (II Kings 5:20–27).
When Jesus heals "lepers" in the New Testament, he instructs them to "go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering" (Luke 5:12-14 as noted; see also Matthew 8:3-4, Luke 17:12-14).  This special command, which does not normally follow healings, is further indication that this disease has a special spiritual significance.
The special significance of tsara'ath is backed by Rabbinic interpretation.  For example, Arakhin 16a states there are seven possible causes of the affliction, all of them serious sins.  Nahmanides described it as a withdrawal of God's presence, noting that the disease sometimes appeared on inanimate objects, such as the walls of one's home.2

1 Encyclopedia Judaica: Leprosy
2 "Tzaraat–A Biblical Affliction" by Tamar Fox at MyJewishLearning


Where are the tombs of Jesus' original 12 Apostles

I got most of this information by perusing Wikipedia.

Simon Peter (brother of Andrew) - traditionally said to be buried in Rome, under St. Peter's Basilica. The tomb dates between 130 and 300.
James (son of Zebedee and older brother of John) also called "James the Greater" - as the patron saint of Spain, he is said to have been buried in Santiago de Compostela after his remains were carried there when he was beheaded in Jerusalem. The pilgrimage site originated in the 9th century.
John (son of Zebedee and brother of James) - traditionally said to have been buried in Ephesus. The basilica has been there since the 6th century, but his remains are said to have not been found.
Andrew (brother of Simon Peter) - traditionally said to have been buried in Patras, Greece. In 357 the relics were transferred to Constantinople. In 867 the skull was sent back to Patras, and in 1208 those that remained in Constantinope were sent to Amalfi, Italy. In 1908 all relics were returned to Patras.
Philip of Bethsaida - traditions say he was martyred in Hierapolis, and archaeologists claim to have found his tomb in 2011. Santi Apostoli is said to contain his remains now (having been transferred from the tomb to Constantinople and then there before the tomb was discovered). It's unclear to me when the remains are supposed to have been transferred there.
Thomas (Didymus) - there are a number of places associated with his martyrdom and burial, but the most commonly accepted seem to be a martyrdom on St. Thomas' Mount in India and burial nearby where San Thome Basilica was later erected. It's unclear when exactly the site became associated with him, but it appears to have been 1523 at the latest.
Bartholomew (Nathaniel) - said to have been martyred in Albanopolis, Armenia with his remains being shuffled around for a while later until they came to rest in the Basilica of St. Bartholomew in Rome in 1180.
Matthew (Levi son of Alphaeus) of Capernaum - said to be buried in Salerno, Italy, where a cathedral was built in 1076.
James (son of Alphaeus) also called "James the Lesser" - Hippolytus said he was stoned to death in Jerusalem, but Nikephoros said he was crucified in Ostrakine, Egypt. His relics are in Santi Apostoli with Philip. As with Philip, it's unclear to me when the site became associated with him.
Simon the Zealot - relics are in St. Peter's Basilica in the same complex as Peter (so dated between 130 and 300)
Judas Thaddaeus (Lebbaeus), called "Jude of James" (brother or son of someone named James, possibly one of the Jameses in this list) - relics are in St. Peter's Basilica in the same complex as Peter (so dated between 130 and 300)
Judas Iscariot - died in Akeldama and presumably still there, but nobody has been terribly interested in venerating the tomb of a traitor
Matthias - the Greeks claim he's buried in Gonio, Georgia but Catholics have had his relics in St. Matthew's Abbey in Trier, Germany since 1148


Research project: am I missing any verses where Jesus addresses wealth and greed?

These all touch on the topic of greed, because they put money in their place.  The ones marked with a = I consider to be more so.

= Matthew 13:22..  the seed among thorny soil was choked by the deceitful ness of wealth.

Luke 16:1-12, Jesus refers to "unrighteous mammon".

= Luke 16:14 also points out sneering Pharisees who loved money.

Luke 21; Mark 10, the widow giving more than any others.  Many regard this as Jesus' last public teaching before the crucifixion, and it was on money.

The parable in Matthew 20 seems to be about generosity, but is also about the envy of gain.  Those given the same wages though they should receive more, but the focus was on the generosity of the master compared with the attitude and expectation of the workers.

That's it at a glance.  Some of them may not be exactly what you're looking for, but hopefully provide some useful ideas.

Additionally, it should probably be said that God no where says wealth is evil, merely coveteousness.  Merely reflecting on the Old Testament and the passages in the Gospels, God was upset when men valued wealth more than their brother. Things over people.  The material is not focus, the heart always is.  If the man in Mark 10 had seen the true worth of what Jesus was offering,  we might have read about an impromptu estate sale...  Perhaps this goes beyond simply answering the question, but it does seem to be "the whole truth".  It seems to round out the answer, keeping it in focus.


What 'cubit' did the Lord refer to in Genesis 6:15?

A cubit is a general form of measure - it is approximately the length of your arm, from the elbow to your finger.  As such, a cubit isn't specific to a culture, it is specific to a man.  On average, 18 inches is a good approximation, but that can differ from person to person - for some people it might be 15" for others, 21". The various cubits that you see reflect later legislative (and historians') attempts to "standardize" the measure.  The exactitude you look for in modern groups didn't exist then.

As Robert Creese points out in his wonderful book World in the Balance: The Historic Quest for an Absolute System of Measurement, human based measures were never intended to match the precision we look for today.  Cecil Adams points out that the 'mile' has varied in length over time as well. "18 inches" is specific. Cubits are not that specific.

As such, there are two good options to answer your question:

God was saying to Noah - "Use your cubit."
God didn't care about the exact dimensions to the precision you are looking for.

And of course Narnian is right on when he points out that Persia, Rome, Sumer, and Egypt were hundreds of years after Noah.

Incidentally, Creese specifically mentions that there are even different kinds of cubits - sacred cubits were 25 inches!

  Indeed, Taylor said, the pyramid had been built to provide “the measure of the Earth” for humans. Furthermore, the unit used to measure the stones was the “sacred cubit” (about 25 inches) that had been used by God’s chosen people throughout the ancient world in their holy construction projects—Noah in his ark, Abraham in the tabernacle, and Solomon in the temple.7

Crease, Robert P. (2011-10-17). World in the Balance: The Historic Quest for an Absolute System of Measurement (Kindle Locations 2295-2298). Norton. Kindle Edition.


What did Brigham Young teach regarding Blood Atonement, and is that doctrine still held today in the LDS/Mormon Church?

I found this article at Desert News concerning the topic:

  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released this
  statement Wednesday:

  In the mid-19th century, when rhetorical, emotional oratory was
  common, some church members and leaders used strong language that
  included notions of people making restitution for their sins by giving
  up their own lives.

  However, so-called "blood atonement," by which individuals would be
  required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a
  doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We
  believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of
  Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible
  for all people.

That same site states the date of this announcement as June 18, 2010.


Which order/choir of angels did Satan most likely belong to before he fell?

Then there are those (like myself) who will argue whether he has either truly fallen or not yet. However, here is the Christian (assuming Catholic as well) hierarchy of angels, and the likeliness of Satan being/not being one based on Scripture, and not opinion:

First Heirarchy (Highest)
Seraphim - it's possible, I suppose, however Ezekiel 28 tells us he was a Cherubim. First noted in Isaiah 6:1-7.
Cherubim - The most likely, and supported by Scripture assuming Ezekiel 28 is about Satan. First noted in Eden in Genesis 3:24, also guard God's Throne in Ezekiel 28:14–16
Thrones/Ophanim - If they are angelic beings meant to care for the thrones, or make up the thrones themselves I am not quite sure. However, given that they are one of the two, I doubt myself that this is what Satan is. Noted first in  Daniel 7:9, and again by Paul in Colossians 1:16.

Second Heirarchy (Middle)
Dominations - They regulate the duties of the lower angels, and are described in Eph. 1:21 and Col. 1:16. This could be suitable as an order in which Satan belonged, hence his amassing an army.
Virtues - Their primary duty is to supervise the movements of the heavenly bodies in order to ensure that the cosmos remains in order. While this could make sense as well, it seems unlikely. One of them not doing their job sounds like it'd be noticeable. They are described in Ephesians 1:21.
Powers - They are the bearers of conscience and the keepers of history. They are also the warrior angels created to be completely loyal to God. Some believe that no Power has ever fallen from grace, but another theory states that Satan was the Chief of the Powers before he Fell (see also Ephesians 6:12). Their duty is to oversee the distribution of power among humankind, hence their name.

Third Heirarchy (Lowest)
Principalities - Their duty also is said to be to carry out the orders given to them by the Dominions and bequeath blessings to the material world. Their task is to oversee groups of people. They are the educators and guardians of the realm of earth. Like beings related to the world of the germinal ideas, they are said to inspire living things to many things such as art or science.
Archangels - The word "archangel" comes from the Greek ἀρχάγγελος (archangělǒs), meaning chief angel, a translation of the Hebrew רב־מלאך (rav-mal'ákh) [11] It derives from the Greek archō, meaning to be first in rank or power; and angělǒs which means messenger or envoy. The word is only used twice in the New Testament: 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and Jude 1:9. Only Archangels Gabriel and Michael are mentioned by name in the New Testament. It's possible he could have been one of these, but they seem rather loyal to God in the stories.
Angels - well, you know - the plain ones apparently. I think we can all agree he was not a "regular" angel if anything.

You can read more about them here, which expands on Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite's book De Coelesti Hierarchia (On the Celestial Hierarchy) and Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica.


Christian response(s) to disaster survival, or Christian self-defense

Here is an article that goes into this topic far better than I could.

The relevant summary is:

  Though we see sanction and even a qualified directive from Christ to possess personal weapons, we must remember three points. First, in the remainder of the New Testament, we have no further examples of believers taking up the sword. Secondly, the emphasis in the remainder of the New Testament is decidedly not geared toward the issues of physical self-defense or righteous use of lethal force. Rather, we see more emphasis on Godly living, suffering affliction and persecution for Christ, and grasping the precious doctrines of Christ and the Gospel.  Thirdly, possession of weapons and acquiring the skill to use them in self-defense is permitted but not required by Scripture.

And a few choice quotes (see the article for many more) are:

Psalm 82:4 (ESV)

  Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.

Psalm 144:1 (ESV)

  Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:

Proverbs 3:32 (ESV)

  Do not envy a man of violence, And do not choose any of his ways.

Luke 6:27-29 (ESV)

  27"But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either."


If the dinosaurs and man co existed, why did the dinosaurs perish?

Joseph C. Dillow wrote a book, The Waters Above, about a possible water canopy above the earth that was the source of the downpour. The entire book was an attempt to scientifically measure any of its effects on earth today.

He speculated that with the water canopy, there would be more weight on us and dinosaurs. Based on what we know about hyperbaric healing after surgery, that extra pressure caused longer life for humans and allowed the vaster dinosaurs better blood flow. Once the canopy emptied, lifespans shortened and large dinosaurs could not survive.

I'm not sure the water canopy is a valid theory anymore, though.

[One interesting tidbit in the book was that after the flood event, Noah got drunk (Gen. 9:21). Dillow noted that the lesser pressure causes faster fermentation than normal, so Noah may have thought he was drinking something milder at the time.]

One thing about dinosaurs: Whenever we see or read about them, the huge lizards inevitably figure prominently. Yet bones of these monsters account for a fraction of 0.01 of skeletons found. The vast amount of prehistoric beings found were shellfish and animals no larger than sheep. Quick -- what are today's largest known animals you can think of off the top of your head? Not many, huh? So it was in the ancient world. Sorry to digress.


Why is oil the suitable "matter" for the Sacrament of Confirmation?

Both the new and the old Catechisms have something to say in this respect, and approach the subject from slightly different angles.
The Roman Catechism states in its article on Confirmation:

We now come to treat of the component parts of the Sacrament, and first of its matter. This is called chrism, a word ... appropriated by common usage among ecclesiastical writers to signify that ointment only which is composed of oil and balsam with the solemn consecration of the Bishop. A mixture of two material things, therefore, furnishes the matter of Confirmation; and this mixture of different things not only declares the manifold grace of the Holy Ghost given to those who are confirmed but also sufficiently shows the excellence of the Sacrament itself.
... Nor indeed could any other matter than that of chrism seem more appropriate to declare the effects of this Sacrament. Oil, by its nature rich, unctuous and fluid, expresses the fullness of grace, which, through the Holy Ghost, overflows and is poured into others from Christ the head, like the ointment that ran down upon the beard of Aaron, to the skirt of his garment; for God anointed him with the oil of gladness, above his fellows, and of his fullness we all have received.
Balsam, the odour of which is most pleasant, can signify nought save that the faithful, when made perfect by the grace of Confirmation, diffuse around them such a sweet odour of all virtues, that they may say with the Apostle: We are unto God the good odour of Christ [cf 2 Corinthians 2:15]. Balsam has also the power of preserving from corruption whatever it is used to anoint. This property seems admirably suited to express the virtue of the Sacrament, since it is quite evident that the souls of the faithful, prepared by the heavenly grace of Confirmation, are easily protected from the contagion of sins.

Chrism is still formulated of (usually olive) oil and balsam. The website ForYourMarriage.org, created and maintained by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, states in an article on it:

Like all our sacred oils, Chrism is made from olive oil, although other vegetable oils can be used if olive oil is unavailable. And like the other two, Chrism is blessed at the end of Lent by the diocesan bishop, at a special liturgy called the Chrism Mass.  Unlike to other sacramental oils. Chrism is scented, usually with essential oil of Balsam, giving it a woody, pine-like fragrance.

The current Catechism has a slightly different take to the reasons for chrism's suitability:

Anointing, in Biblical and other ancient symbolism, is rich in meaning: oil is a sign of abundance and joy; it cleanses (anointing before and after a bath) and limbers (the anointing of athletes and wrestlers); oil is a sign of healing, since it is soothing to bruises and wounds; and it makes radiant with beauty, health, and strength.
Anointing with oil has all these meanings in the sacramental life. The pre-baptismal anointing with the oil of catechumens signifies cleansing and strengthening; the anointing of the sick expresses healing and comfort. The post-baptismal anointing with sacred chrism in Confirmation and ordination is the sign of consecration. By Confirmation Christians, that is, those who are anointed, share more completely in the mission of Jesus Christ and the fullness of the Holy Spirit with which he is filled, so that their lives may give off "the aroma of Christ".
By this anointing the confirmand receives the "mark," the seal of the Holy Spirit. A seal is a symbol of a person, a sign of personal authority, or ownership of an object. Hence soldiers were marked with their leader’s seal and slaves with their master’s. A seal authenticates a juridical act or document and occasionally makes it secret.
Christ himself declared that he was marked with his Father’s seal. Christians are also marked with a seal: "It is God who establishes us with you in Christ and has commissioned us; he has put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee" This seal of the Holy Spirit marks our total belonging to Christ, our enrollment in his service for ever, as well as the promise of divine protection in the great eschatological trial.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1293–96)
In summary, then, one can say that the oil of chrism, when used for Confirmation, has the following characteristics:

By its fluidity, it signifies grace flowing from Christ to the confirmand.
By its smell, it signifies the diffusion of the virtues of Christ around the confirmand.
By its historical associations, it signifies being set apart for God, sealed by the Holy Spirit, marked as belonging to God.

These are the reasons why the Church believes the oil of chrism to be the appropriate matter for the Sacrament of Confirmation.


What are typical Christian responses to The Grand Inquisitor?

Opening

The Church does not base her theology on rebutting, as in this case, the arguments advanced by the Grand Inquisitor parable.

The Church's theology delves into Divine Revelation = Sacred Scripture + [Holy] Tradition.

Nevertheless, the Church's theology can rebut those kinds of arguments. In line with the criteria for answers on this site, this post starts from the theology of the Church and not from the Grand Inquisitor parable's position.

The following is a Catholic understanding of the Temptation of Jesus in Mt 4:1-11. It is a commentary  by members of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Navarre on the passage in The Navarre Bible New Testament Compact Edition.

  Matthew uses this episode of the temptations in the wilderness to
  depict Jesus as the new Israel, in contrast to the old. Jesus is
  tempted, as Moses and the chosen people were in their forty-year
  pilgrimage in the wilderness. The Israelites yielded to temptation:
  they complained against God on account of their hunger (Ex
  16:1ff),
  demanded a miracle when they had no water (Ex
  17:1-7),
  and adored the golden calf (Ex
  32).
  But Jesus does not yield and , by overcoming the temptation, "reveals
  the way in which the Son of Man is Messiah, contrary to the way Satan
  proposes to him and the way men wish to attribute to him (cf. Mt
  16:21-23)"
  [CCC, 540].

With such an understanding, I hope the confusion you have as to why the Grand Inquisitor is considered to be such a powerful argument for atheism and against theodicy will begin clearing up.

Please see also: Home > Summa Theologica > Third Part > Question 41. Christ's temptation | New Advent.

The chapter itself seems to state that Jesus set the bar much too high for man with respect to salvation, but isn't it true that humans were never intended to reach the level of holiness that Jesus attained and that salvation is a gift to those who repent?

If we may have been unable to succeed before, with the coming of the LORD and his help, we can now overcome temptation and sin.

From CCC, 540 referenced above:

  This is why Christ vanquished the Tempter for us: "For we have not a
  high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one
  who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without
  sinning."[Heb 4:15].

And

  1 Jn
  5:3-5(RSVCE)
  3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his
  commandments are not burdensome. 4 For whatever is born of God
  overcomes the world; and this is the victory that overcomes the world,
  our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world but he who believes
  that Jesus is the Son of God?

[B]ut isn't it true that humans were never intended to reach the level of holiness that Jesus attained[?]

That is precisely our calling:

  Mt 5:48
  (RSVCE)
  48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is
  perfect.

Why is Ivan's description of the suffering of children such powerful ammunition for rejecting God?

Why is there evil? Why does God permit suffering? Why do the innocent, like children, suffer?

We know that these are very deep questions whichever way they are approached, theologically, philosophically, etc.

We only begin to understand them, and only just, after the coming of the LORD Jesus Christ, the all-benevolent, all-good, all-holy, all-powerful God. He himself suffered.

  cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22 | Pastoral Constitution on the Church in
  the Modern World | Second Vatican Council | Promulgated by His
  Holiness Pope Paul VI, December 7,
  1965.
  Such is the mystery of man, and it is a great one, as seen by
  believers in the light of Christian revelation. Through Christ and
  in Christ, the riddles of sorrow and death grow meaningful. Apart from
  His Gospel, they overwhelm us. Christ has risen, destroying death by
  His death; He has lavished life upon us[cf. The Byzantine Easter
  Liturgy.] so that, as sons in the Son, we can cry out in the
  Spirit; Abba, Father.[cf. Rom. 8:15 and Gal. 4:6; cf. also John
  1:22 and John 3:1-2.]

Please see Evil | New Advent the section The solution of the problem has been attempted by three different methods.


Three is the number of perfection, or completion. This number is repeated throughout the Bible as a symbol of completeness.

God's attributes are three: omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.

Time is divided in three: past, present and future.

Three is the first of four perfect numbers...

Three denotes divine perfection;
Seven denotes spiritual perfection;
Ten denotes ordinal perfection; and
Twelve denotes governmental perfection.

Abraham offered three measures of meal to his guest(s), showing the perfection of God's divine nature. In Numbers 15:9, the instructions to offer with a burn offering read, "Then shall he bring with the bullock a meal offering of THREE tenth deals of flour.", as were the instructions for the cleansing of a leper in Lev 14:10.

The third book in the Bible, where we learn about true worship, is Leviticus.

During His ministry Jesus raised three persons from the dead.

On the third day, the earth rose from the water, symbolic of resurrection life. He was crucified at the third hour, was on the cross from 3 hours, rose from the grave on the third day.

The inscription above His cross, in three languages, showed the completeness of His rejection by man.

He fulfilled the three offices of Prophet, Priest, and King (Deut 177:15, 18:3-5, and 18:15).

For more on the number three, please reference EW Bullinger's excellent book Number in Scripture.


Why is it rare to combine Reformed/Calvinist doctrine and Dispensationalism?

The reason these two are seldom found together seems to be primarily because of the difference of the view of the church between covenant theology and dispensationalism. Although some (like MacArthur) continue to maintain the distinction between the church and Israel (as in dispensationalism), most 5 point Calvinists follow covenant theology which denies this distinction - placing the beginning of the church at least back to Abraham, and logically back to Adam. Therefore, although dispensationalism maintains that everyone has always been saved by grace through faith, the specific object of that faith in Reformed theology is understood to be Christ - while dispensationalism would recognize the role of the progress of revelation such that the basis for salvation was the Cross, the object was not as clearly seen as the incarnate Son of God. Actually, it is even more complex than this, but this gets you going in the right direction.


Why did Jesus say the dead girl was "not dead but asleep"?

The Bible often uses the word sleep to refer to those who are dead, especially those who are going to be resurrected to life. So I think Jesus meant that the girl was not dead forever, without hope.

Yet you sweep people away in the sleep of death— they are like the new grass of the morning (Psalm 90:5)
Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:2)
After he had said this, he went on to tell them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.” His disciples replied, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.” Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead,” (John 11:11-14)
Now when David had served God’s purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his ancestors and his body decayed. (Acts 13:36)
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. (1 Corinthians 15:6)
Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. (1 Corinthians 15:51-52)
Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. (1 Thessalonians 4:13-14)


Where are the majority of Roman Catholic converts from today?

From 2000-2008:

  Over these nine years, the Catholic presence in the world has grown from 1.045 billion in 2000 to 1.166 billion in 2008, an increase of 11.54%. Considering the statistics in detail, numbers in Africa grew by 33%, in Europe they remained generally stable (an increase of 1.17%), while in Asia they increased by 15.61%, in Oceania by 11.39% and in America by 10.93%. As a percentage of the total population, European Catholics represented 26.8% in 2000 and 24.31% in 2008. In America and Oceania they have remained stable, and increased slightly in Asia.

Source: zenit.org (from the Statistical Yearbook of the Church)

Unfortunately this doesn't help identify the converts' previous religious beliefs, but possibly the Yearbook might have those sort of details.


What is the difference between Apollinarianism and Eutychianism?

In general, the Apollinarians said that Christ's humanity is incomplete because He has the human body and human soul, but does not have the human spirit, which is mysteriously replaced by the Logos. The so-called Christ is thus formed with these three: Logos, soul, and body (unlike a normal human being which is made up of the spirit, soul, and body).

According to Eutychians, they denied the distinctness and coexistence of Christ's divinity and humanity, but asserted that the two natures were merged into one, which is neither divine nor human, but a third nature resulting through the merging of divinity and humanity - the divinity being dominant, with the humanity being absorbed by the divinity. Hence the Eutychians were also known as the Monophysites.

Eutyches did not seem to reject the full humanity of Jesus Christ. But, even though he did not repeat the exact heresy of Apollinarius, he did reduce Christ's humanity to a "drop of wine in the ocean of his deity".

Justo González, in "A History of Christian Thought, vol. 1", mentions that:

  ... Eutyches, a monk in Constantinople who lacked theological subtlety,
  and who held that, while the Savior was “of one substance [homoousios]
  with the Father, he was not “of one substance with us.

According to Eutyches, the humanity of Jesus Christ made no different to the the Logos and was swallowed up in the incarnation union with Him. So, not only Christ did not have a human personality or individual human existence, he did not have a human nature like ours at all.

Basically, a third nature in which neither human nor divine but in which the divine dominates.

So, the difference is Apollinarians states that Christ's humanity is incomplete while Eutychians merges both natures into a third, losing the distinctness and co-existence of both.


How does the Catholic Church explain the differences in the verses of Lk 4:18 vis-a-vis Isiah 61:1

This is the full discussion from a Roman Catholic commentary.  It gives specific details, which I am unable to summarize.

18-19. In quoting from Is 61:1-2, Jesus leaves out one of the lines, “to heal the brokenhearted.” Luke reserves the Gk word, “to heal” (iaomai), for physical cures; a little later (v. 23), Jesus refuses to work any such cures in Nazareth, for his concern here is with preaching and interior renewal. A line, therefore, is added instead from Is 58:6; “to send away free the oppressed.” Although the Vg and some late Gk mss. include the line “and the day of vindication” at the end of v. 19, important mss. do not contain the words, which for Luke put too much emphasis upon punishment; he deletes the same words in 7:22 when he once more cites Is. 18. the spirit of the Lord is upon me: In Lk this would refer to Jesus’ own baptism (3:22; Acts 10:38). to bring good news to the poor: In 7:22 Jesus points to this action as indicative of his Messianic mission. Used without an article in Greek, the word “poor” refers to a quality or state rather than to individual poor persons (cf. GrBib § 171). he has sent me: The pf. tense of the Gk verb means more than merely to be sent; it declares that the one sent has already arrived and is to be found in the person of Jesus. to announce the year of grace accorded by the Lord: All the hopes of the jubilee year (Lv 25:8-55), when debts were wiped out and all possessions returned to their original owner, are fulfilled in the Messianic presence of Jesus. Universalism characterizes the jubilee year, for the celebration rests on the explanation given by God that “[all] land is mine, and you are but aliens” (Lv 25:23). God graciously divides it among all his elect. --
Brown, R. E., Fitzmyer, J. A., & Murphy, R. E. (1996). The Jerome Biblical commentary (Vol. 2, p. 131). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.


Does Cain still have descendants on the earth?

Your answer seems correct. As God has never approved of being unequally yoked. Cain's descendants followed after Cain and dwelt in his city (Gen 4:17). God never wanted people to live clustered in cities, where sin would abound, and there are various examples of this throughout Genesis. God's people stayed in the wilderness, tilling the ground and doing the work God had commanded to them as a blessing, even though the ground was now cursed.  These were the people that began "calling on the name of the LORD." (Gen 4:25)

You could see the striking difference between the people that followed God and obeyed His commandments and those that did not.

From this point you can infer that Noah and his sons, being righteous in the eyes of God, would not mix with those who did evil in the eyes of God. If this is so, then Noah and his 3 sons would have wives that loved the LORD and were not of the lineage of Cain.

Of course it could also be that one or more of the wives were descendants of Cain that decided to follow in the way of the LORD. Nevertheless, the Bible offers no such insight on this matter. So the true answer is we do not know, but I'm definitely more inclined to say that they all were destroyed.


What type of Christianity does Hans Christian Andersen depict in *The Red Shoes*?

In western culture, Red is the color of passion and it's disordered vice of lust is cooped up in the color. (see also, the Scarlet letter). I see the esteemed Revered V says the sin is pride.  I don't disagree, I just think the real sin that is being covered here is lust and not pride.  Karen has a disordered desire to dance and be seen when she should stand still and keep quiet.

As far as the particular religion is concerned.  I don't see it being Catholicism:

  She went to the parsonage, and begged that she might be taken into service there.

Parsonage is a is a Protestant term, now, either he's just using the wrong word there, which is understandable or he's referring to someone else,  if it were Catholic, we'd call it a Rectory, not a parsonage. I don't think he didn't wrote deliberately Catholic stories like the Grimm brothers did, but I'm not an expert and have read more Grimm's Fairy Tales than his.

So, my answer would be, the same type of Christianity that Nathanael Hawthorne portrays in The Scarlet Letter, good old fashioned puritanism.


How do Protestants view the prophecy and birth of Jesus

Speaking as a Protestant:

One of the core tenants of our faith is Sola Scriptura. As it says in the scripture:

2 Peter 1:19-21

  We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye
  take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn,
  and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Peter here is saying that the scriptures are more sure, more trustworthy, than the voice of God booming directly from heaven (see the passages context). Moreover, he states that scripture has no private interpretation; in which he communicates that God Himself wrote the scriptures with a specific intended meaning in mind. This principle declares that there is an absolute truth, and only one correct understanding of the scriptures.

While this principle has been largely lost sight of, the application of this principle to the matter at hand becomes quite easy to understand. Matthew, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, applies the prophecy of Isaiah 7 to Jesus' birth; and so it is not Matthew, but God rather who is divinely interpreting His own prophecy for us through His servant.


How do Jehovah Witnesses explain differences between NWT and Hebrew/Latin/Greek in Zechariah 12:10 and Acts 20:28?

The bible many times attributes actions to God as if he did them directly, when it is actually that he allowed it or had someone else do it. This is similar to a foreman saying that he build a house even though he didn't even hammer in one single nail. In simple terms, these scriptures are similar to that.
Below I have quoted an old Watchtower article that explains Zechariah 12:10.
Also here is a link to an appendix to the NWT that explains why Acts 20:28 was translated the way it is: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001060098

Watchtower 1953 8/15 p. 511 - Questions From Readers
● Zechariah 12:10 states: “They shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they
shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in
bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.”
Jehovah is the speaker, and it sounds as though he was the one pierced
instead of Jesus. Some argue this proves that Jehovah and Jesus are
one in a trinity. So how is Zechariah 12:10 to be explained?—R. B.,
New York.
To avoid what seems to be a piercing of Jehovah some of the
later Hebrew manuscripts read “look upon him whom they have pierced”,
rather than “look upon me whom they have pierced”. At first these late
Jewish manuscripts show this in the Keri, or corrected reading in the
margin; but eventually in some manuscripts the change was brought up
into the body of the text itself. Rotherham’s translation, on the
basis of these late manuscripts, offers in a footnote “him” as an
acceptable reading in place of “me”. So does the American Standard
Version. Some modern translations, such as Moffatt and An American
Translation and Revised Standard Version, use “him” instead of “me” in
the main body of the text itself. However, the oldest and best Hebrew
manuscripts read “me” rather than “him”.
As far as literal piercing is
concerned, this occurred in the case of Christ Jesus, and at John
19:37 the prophecy of Zechariah 12:10 is quoted and applied to Jesus:
“They will look upon the one whom they pierced.” (NW) They did not
literally pierce God, who was in heaven and to whom Jesus spoke when
he was on the torture stake. (Matt. 27:46; Luke 23:46) God could not
die, and then resurrect himself. (Ps. 90:2) Yet inasmuch as Jesus
Christ was Jehovah’s representative who became “the exact
representation of his very being”, in piercing Jesus they could be
said to be piercing Jehovah. (Heb. 1:3, NW) When sending out his
followers to preach Jesus said: “He that receives you receives me
also, and he that receives me receives him also that sent me forth.”
(Matt. 10:40, NW) This shows that in receiving Jesus we receive
Jehovah who sent him. In like manner, to pierce Jesus is to pierce
Jehovah who sent him. It does not prove Jesus and Jehovah are one, any
more than it proves Jesus and his followers are literally one. In
another case Jehovah showed that to reject his representative is to
reject Him. When Samuel was Jehovah’s appointed judge over Israel the
people came requesting a king instead of a judge. Samuel was
displeased when they said: “Give us a king to judge us.” But Jehovah
told Samuel: “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me.”
(1 Sam. 8:4-7, AS) In rejecting Jehovah’s representative they rejected
Jehovah, in effect; but this did not make Samuel one with Jehovah in a
trinity.
Some of those used as tools to accomplish Jesus’ impalement realized
their mistake and became frightened; the crowds that had sanctioned
the piercing smote their breasts when they saw their blunder, and
later some involved ones repented and followed Christ. (Matt. 27:54;
Luke 23:47, 48; Acts 2:23, 36-42) But the only bitterness and mourning
that hit the religious instigators of the piercing was when things did
not work out fully for their selfish interests. The ones who truly
mourned were his faithful followers. (Luke 24:17) But as Zechariah
12:10 also foretold, about this time Jehovah’s spirit was poured out
upon the faithful remnant of natural Israel, at Pentecost. So the text
had its miniature fulfillment.
At the second presence of Christ Jesus the complete fulfillment takes
place. His followers are persecuted and jailed and some are killed,
and the work of announcing Jehovah’s King and kingdom is pierced and
killed. These things done to Christ’s work and followers are counted
as done to him; the persecutors are charged with piercing him. Any
mourning by them is in selfish fear when they see coming upon them the
dire consequences of their acts. The only true mourning is on the part
of Jehovah’s people who had allowed themselves to fall short of their
duties and be taken captive in Satan’s worldly system and made
inactive in Jehovah’s service. But Jehovah comes to the rescue of this
remnant of spiritual Israel, cleans them up, pours out his spirit or
active force upon them, and under the enthroned King Christ Jesus the
work is revived. (Matt. 25:40, 45; Rev. 1:7; 11:1-13) Their mourning
gives way to gladness.
Hence Zechariah 12:10 cannot be properly understood to support the
trinity doctrine.


According to Roman Catholic Doctrine, does everyone spend time in purgatory?

Anyone who dies in sin, but not Mortal Sin, goes to Purgatory. This would include Priests and Bishops (the Pope is the Bishop of Rome).
There are specific cases that the Church says the person will go straight to heaven. We say Mary was assumed into heaven; she did not go to Purgatory. Martyrs are also said to go straight to heaven according to religion facts.:

If a person is martyred for the faith, miracles are not necessary to be declared a saint. As mentioned above, the purpose of canonization is to verify that the person is now in heaven, and all those who die as martyrs are believed to go straight to heaven.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1030    All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
1472    To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.84 (1861, 1031)


Did church fathers ever deal with "Bible requires brutality" critics?

My recollection of the section in Confessions where Augustine discusses the Bible with Ambrose was that they took most of the Old Testament far more figuratively than we do today (it should be noted that one of Augustine's primary objections to Christianity, when he was Manichean, was that the OT is inconsistent and often poorly written). Approaching the desert monastics, I see a very similar approach to the texts — they took things as relating to spiritual warfare and far less as a literal account of history (and it can be argued that they couldn't care less about the literal account anyhow).

I guess that my impression is that if you complained to one of the Fathers, "the Old Testament is so barbaric" the response would be:

You're not reading it right
It is tame compared to what other philosophies and religions have taught.


Do we find any (even hazy) references in non-Jewish traditions about Jesus, as promised saviour?

In his book, Eternity in Their Hearts, Don Richardson details what he calls "A World Prepared for the Gospel", which is the title of the first section of the book.

People of the Lost Book

Chapter 2 is entitled "Peoples of the Lost Book", which details tribes that bemoan the fact that their ancestors had lost "the book" from God.  Some of them looked forward to the day when this book would be restored.

People with Strange Customs

Chapter 3 speaks is entitled "Peoples with Strange Customs", which detail the customs of very remote tribes with strikingly similarities to things in the Bible.  In Don Richardson's own experience as a missionary to a remote tribe, he identifies the custom of the "Peace Child".  When he presents Jesus as God's peace child, the tribe responds to the Gospel in a powerful way.

The Ancient Chinese

The ancient Chinese also have some interesting writings from Lao Tze and others.  Prior to Mao Tse Tung, the emperor actually offered what was called the Border Sacrifice every year in the Temple of Heaven.  This closely resembles the offering of the Jewish High Priest once a year for the sins of the people.

The Chinese alphabet itself has some extraordinary parallels to Genesis 1-11.  Interestingly enough, the word for righteousness is a combination of two other characters--the word for Lamb and the word for me.  Righteousness is a lamb over/covering me.


What is the Roman Catholic view on Matthew 23:9?

It's pretty blatant hyperbole, evidenced by the fact that St. Peter and St. Paul both used the term "father" in their letters freely and repeatedly.
In Romans 4:11-12:

11And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal on the righteousness received through faith while he was uncircumcised. Thus he was to be the father of all the uncircumcised who believe, so that to them [also] righteousness might be credited,
12as well as the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised, but also follow the path of faith that our father Abraham walked while still uncircumcised.

In Romans 9:10:

And not only that, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one husband, our father Isaac

In 1 Corinthians 4:15:

Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

In 1 Thessalonians 2:11:

As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children,

In 1 Timothy 5:1:

Do not rebuke an older man, but appeal to him as a father. Treat younger men as brothers,

In Hebrews 12:9:

Besides this, we have had our earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them. Should we not [then] submit all the more to the Father of spirits and live?

In James 2:21:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?

In 1 John 2:13:

I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.
I am writing to you, young men, because you have conquered the evil one.

St. Paul also used it in Acts 22:1:

“My brothers and fathers, listen to what I am about to say to you in my defense.”

As well as St. Stephen in Acts 7:2:

And he replied, “My brothers and fathers, listen. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was in Mesopotamia, before he had settled in Haran,

The list of references to the apostles calling people (or themselves) fathers continues on from there.
The dead giveaway though is in Matthew 19:18-19, when Jesus himself makes mention of worldly fathers in his recitation of the commandments:

18He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness;
19honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Jesus was known for using hyperbole as a rhetorical device. Consider Matthew 5:29-30:

29If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away.s It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna.
30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.

Obviously, Jesus doesn't mean for you to pluck your eye out or cut your hand off.
So if it's not meant to be taken literally, what was the point Jesus was trying to convey? For that, I turn to an essay on Catholic Answers, which was declared nihil obstat by the Censor Librorum of the Archdiocese of San Diego:

Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. [...] To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.
[...]
This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a "cult of personality" around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher.


Who were the eyewitnesses mentioned by name who were still living to the audience of the book/letter in question?

You are certainly thinking of 1 Corinthians 15: 4-7 where the Apostle St. Paul speaks about 500 eyewitnesses of which some were still living and names all the Apostles as witnesses also.

  And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.


If God controls our decisions, does this mean we don't have free will?

From a purely practical standpoint, ie removing all theological considerations for a moment, we have free will. I can decide to get up and have a glass of water right now. I can flex and relax the muscles in my fingers to make a fist or open my hand. Perceptually I am controlling my body, my thoughts, and making decisions. When I interact with other people, I perceive an ability to formulate my responses independently of their interaction with me.
Whether I have complete free will, limited free will, or all my actions are predetermined, I cannot perceive anything beyond this immediate moment, and I cannot perceive active outside interference with my free will, and therefore the only logical way to act is as if I have free will. The many verses in Scripture instructing us to behave, choose, and think certain ways seems to back this up - for example:

Jos 24:15 NIV  But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."
Pro 1:10 NIV  My son, if sinners entice you, do not give in to them.

And yes, I am aware of other passages which support predestination and would seem to contra-indicate free will. My only point is regardless of the flow of time and causality from God's perspective, we don't have this eternal or future perspective available to us and must practice making the best choices assuming that we do have free will.


Were all Nephilim evil?

Impossible to say, but I doubt it.

Let us start by seeing who the Nephilim of the Scripture may truly be:

  The Nephilim (Hebrew: נְפִילִים) were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" before the Deluge, according to Genesis 6:1-4.

  A similar or identical biblical Hebrew term, read as "Nephilim" by some scholars, or as the word "fallen" by others, appears in Ezekiel 32:27.1

  When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, "My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, New Revised Standard Version

  The word is loosely translated as giants in some Bibles and left untranslated in others. The "sons of God" have been interpreted as fallen angels in some traditional Jewish explanations.

  According to Numbers 13:33, they later inhabited Canaan at the time of the Israelite conquest of Canaan.

  The Lord said to Moses, "Send men to spy out the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites" ... So they went up and spied out the land ... And they told him: "... Yet the people who live in the land are strong, and the towns are fortified and very large; and besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there." ... So they brought to the Israelites an unfavorable report of the land that they had spied out, saying, "The land that we have gone through as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people that we saw in it are of great size. There we saw the Nephilim (the Anakites come from the Nephilim); and to ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them." — Numbers 13:1–2; 21; 27–28; 32–33. New Revised Standard Version.

And now let us look at what the Sons of God may mean:

  Sons of the God (Hebrew: בני האלהים) literally: "sons of the Gods") is a phrase used in the Hebrew Bible and apocrypha. The phrase is also used in Kabbalah where bene elohim are part of different Jewish angelic hierarchies.

  Hebrew Bible

  Genesis 6

  And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, KJV

  The first mention of "sons of God" in the Hebrew Bible occurs at Genesis 6:1–4. In terms of literary-historical origin, this phrase is typically associated with the Jahwist tradition.3

  This passage has had two interpretations in Judaism:

  Offspring of Seth: The first references to the offspring of Seth rebelling from God and mingling with the daughters of Cain are found in Christian and rabbinic literature from the second century CE onwards e.g. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Augustine of Hippo, Julius Africanus, and the Letters attributed to St. Clement. It is also the view expressed in the modern canonical Amharic Ethiopian Orthodox Bible. In Judaism "Sons of God" usually refers to the righteous, i.e. the children of Seth.
  Angels: All of the earliest sources interpret the "sons of God" as angels. From the third century BCE onwards, references are found in the Enochic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls the (Genesis Apocryphon, the Damascus Document, 4Q180), Jubilees, the Testament of Reuben, 2 Baruch, Josephus, and the book of Jude (compare with 2 Peter 2). This is also the meaning of the only two identical occurrences of bene ha elohim in the Hebrew Bible (Job 1:6 and 2:1), and of the most closely related expressions (refer to the list above). In the Septuagint, the interpretive reading "angels" is found in Codex Alexandrinus, one of four main witnesses to the Greek text.

  Rabbinic Judaism traditionally adheres to the first interpretation, with some exceptions, and modern Jewish translations may translate bnei elohim as "sons of rulers" rather than "sons of God". Regardless, the second interpretation (sons of angels or other divine beings) is nonexistent in modern Judaism. This is reflected by the rejection of Enoch and other Apocrypha supporting the second interpretation from the Hebrew Bible Canon.

Using Scripture to interpret Scripture is a very common practice in our day and as such the New Testament in the person of St. Luke shows us that the Sons of God were the descendants of Adam.

According to Scripture “sons of God” means “persons who are begotten independently of any creature’s decision”. All angels can appropriately be called “sons of God”, but not all characters called “sons of God” in the Bible can appropriately be considered angels. The “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4 are undoubtedly human, and it is fitting to consider that they were created directly by God through transformation of human-like animals into persons.

  Who was the son of Enos, who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God. - Luke 3:38

Thus if the Nephilim were the descendants of the Sons of God (sons of Adam) and the "daughters of men" surely not all of them were evil. Some of them would have had good and upright souls.


What Justification can be found in revealing contradictions within the Bible?

Here the skeptic attempts to pit Jeremiah 3:12 (a promise to Israel that God will not be angry with them forever) and Jeremiah 17:4 (a statement that God’s anger over sin had been kindled and will burn forever) against each other.

In Jer. 3 God is calling Israel to repent of their sin and turn back to him and promises that his anger will not burn against them forever if they do. In the second passage, God is referring to those who do not turn back to him and how his anger against sin will never end. Thus, the contexts reveal that what is being addressed are two totally different situations. One addresses God’s forgiveness of persons, the other God’s holy hatred of sin. They are simply not even talking about the same things and thus cannot be contradictions.

Also, worth noting is that “forever” in this case is a hyperbolic statement meant to show the seriousness of the offense.