As far as women preachers are concerned there are a couple of passages that teach against this: I Corinthians 14:34; I Timothy 2:11. These two passages would forbid women preachers.

As far as "youth leaders" are concerned, they are never mentioned in the bible. However, where we need to be cautious is that most times youth leaders are used because people think that young people need to hear different messages than older people. That is not necessarily true. Timothy, a young preacher, had the responsibility of preaching and teaching people of all ages, I Timothy 5:1-2. Also, look at I Timothy 4:12. Notice that young people are supposed to be doing the exact same things as older Christians, "being an example in word, conduct, love, spirit, faith, and purity."

The verse you are referring to is certainly a challenging one. Through the years there have been well over thirty explanations as to what this verse means. As you well know from the question that you raise, the Mormons believe that this verse teaches what is known as "vicarious baptism," that the living can be baptized for those that have died who were not baptized. They state that the word translated as "for" in I Cor. 15:29 means "in place of." While this is a common definition for this word, it is not the only definition. Also, this verse could not teach "vicarious baptism" because it would contradict what so many other scriptures teach:

1. Ezekiel 18:20. This verse teaches that the individual is responsible at to whether God views as being righteous or wicked. Vicarious baptism would violate the teaching of this verse because it takes away the responsibility of the individual.
2. II Corinthians 5:10. We are told that each person will stand in judgment and will give account for what he has done, whether he has done good or evil. Once again, this verse places the responsibility on the individual. No one else can do an act of righteousness for us.
3. Romans 14:12. Again, we are told that each must give an account before God. The individual is responsible for himself.
4. Matthew 25:1-11. This is the parable of the Ten Virgins spoken by Jesus. Notice in vs. 8-9 where the foolish virgins who were not prepared tried to borrow oil from those that were prepared, but were not allowed to. The foolish virgins were not granted access to the Lord. The point is that they were not prepared to meet the Lord, and they could not borrow someone else's readiness.
5. Luke 16:26. This is the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus. When both men died Lazarus was in "Abraham's bosom" while the rich man was in torment. The rich man asked that Lazarus would come and touch his tongue with water. In vs. 26 we see that this is impossible because there was a great gulf fixed so that no one could cross. If "vicarious baptism" is true, then those in torment would have to cross over into paradise, but we learn in this verse that this is not possible.
6. Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16; Acts 2:38; I Peter 3:21. All of these verses teach baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, for the individual that is being baptized. There is no mention of others having their sins forgiven through someone else's baptism.
7. You might also consider Matthew 16:27; Romans 2:5-6; and Revelation 20:12. All of these verses teach that the dead are judged according to their own works, not the works of someone else.

All of these verses teach against vicarious baptism. We must remember when studying the Word of God we cannot take a verse to mean something that would contradict another verse. I am not saying that we give a verse just any meaning that suits us, but that we study the verse closely and that we harmonize that verse with the rest of what God has to say. With that said, I cannot give you a definite answer as to what I Cor. 15:29 means, but here are several possible explanations that do not contradict the rest of the scriptures.

1. If you will notice in the rest of this chapter, Paul keeps using the pronouns "you" and "we." However, in verse 29 Paul uses the pronoun "they" and then in vs. 30 uses the pronoun "we" again. It is very possible that Paul was referring to some heretical sect in vs. 29 that thought they could be baptized for the dead. Paul is not condoning this action in vs. 29, but is using it to make a point that if there is no resurrection of the dead, why do these men baptize themselves for the dead? This line of argument is very similar to what Jesus did in Matthew 12:27. In this passage the Pharisees accused Jesus of casting demons out by the power of Beelzebub. Jesus retorts in vs. 27 that if He cast out demons by Satan, then who were their (the Pharisees) sons casting out demons by? Jesus is not saying that these people had the actual power to cast out demons, but they claimed to, so Jesus is making a point that if they accused Him of working by the power of the Devil they would have to accuse their sons of doing the same.
2. Getting back to the word translated as "for" in I Cor. 15:29. While it is often translated as "in place of" it can also mean "in view of" or "with reference to." If we use this definition of "for" then the verse would teach that they were being baptized "in view of the dead." This could mean several things:
   1. They were being baptized having in mind that they would one day be raised to be with the saints that had passed on before. I Thes. 4:16-17.
   2. They were being baptized having in mind their own death and resurrection in mind.

Both of these explanations would not contradict scripture and would fit in with the context of I Corinthians 15, since the whole chapter deals with the resurrection.

I wish that I could give you a concrete answer as to what this passage means. While I am not sure what the exact meaning is, I am sure that the passage does not teach vicarious baptism. I thank you for your question, and if there are any other questions I might be able to answer, please let me know.

Your question is a very good one. Actually, more and more denominations are beginning to teach something like your friend was saying. They hear so much about evolution, and they don't want to seem ignorant or unlearned, so they try and make the Bible adapt to science. The interesting thing is that the Bible does not contradict science, at least not true science that can be proven as fact. The problem with evolution is that it cannot be proven. Remember, it is a theory.

Anyway, in answer to your question I would look at Genesis 1:11-12, 21, 25. Notice that from all of these verses when God created life, He made it where it would reproduce "after its kind." This was true with plants, fishes, birds, and mammals. Thus, a horse will only produce a horse. A rose will only produce a rose. A man can only produce a man. There is no room in the scriptures for your friends' theory about animals evolving into other animals. The choice has to be made...will we accept the bible, or are we going to accept what scientists say about evolution? We can't have it both ways. Personally, I'm siding with the bible.

First of all, you ask a very good question. The book of Revelation is at times a difficult book to understand and requires diligent study in order to understand what is actually being said. One can easily become confused by some of the words and imagery used in the book, and as you probably well know, many far-reaching explanations have been given in an attempt to understand the message of Revelation.

You expressed in your question that you do not believe in using stringed instruments in worship. I, like you, do not believe that the New Testament authorizes us to use instruments in our worship to God. Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 clearly express that we are to sing in our worship to God, and thus instruments are not authorized. However, as you pointed out the passages in Revelation speak of using harps. I would offer the following points as to why these passages in Revelation do not authorize us to use instruments in our worship:

1. The book of Revelation uses symbolic language. Notice Revelation 1:1, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants - things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John." In this verse John states that the message was signified to him, meaning that the revelation was to be expressed using signs. Thus the use of harps, would not literally mean that harps are to be used in worship. Harps would signify a beautiful sound of praise.
2. If the harp in Revelation 5:8 is a literal harp, then since golden bowls of incense are also mentioned, we would be required to use incense in our worship. This would point toward symbolic language.
3. If the harps in Revelation 14:2 are literal harps, then 14:1-4 shows that only the 144,000 mentioned could learn the song. This also points toward symbolic language.
4. If the harps in Revelation 15:2 are literal harps, then since a sea of glass is mentioned, we would be required to stand on the same sea of glass. This also points to symbolic language being used.
5. Revelation uses many symbols from the Old Testament. Revelation 15:5 speaks of the Tabernacle, which is clearly an Old Testament symbol. Instruments were allowed for use in worship during the Old Testament (2 Samuel 6:5). The instruments used in Revelation were used as symbolic imagery, just as the tabernacle was used as symbolic imagery. Neither the tabernacle or instruments are authorized from these passages in Revelation.
6. Even if you discard the symbolic language (which I don't think is possible), the setting for all of the passages you mentioned is in heaven and those that were using the harps were in heaven. We do not read of those dwelling on earth using harps in worship to God, thus using instruments would not be authorized for us on earth.

Jesus said in John 4:24, "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." When worshipping God, we must make sure that we are worshipping Him in the way that He has authorized. When it comes to music, the only way authorized by God in the New Testament is singing, Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16.

I hope that these points will help you in answering your question. If you wish to do some further study on the subject, I would recommend the following sources:

1. Robert Harkrider, A Commentary on Revelation, page 174-175.
2. Homer Hailey, Revelation, An Introduction and Commentary, page 96.

The question that you have asked does seem at first glance to indicate that the scriptures contradict themselves regarding the number of years spent by Israel in the land of Egypt. The answer that seems the most reasonable is that the number used in Genesis 15:13 is a rounded figure. Vs. 16 of this same chapter indicates that four generations would dwell in Egypt and that "in the fourth generation they shall return here..." During the time of Abraham, a generation would last right at one hundred years (See Genesis 11:24-25. This passage indicates that the lengths of the generations were shortening). Thus, if each generation lasted roughly four hundred years, then the four hundred years given in Genesis 15:13 would be an estimate based on the four generations listed in vs. 16.

The number in Exodus 12:40 would be the more exact number, 430 years, that the Israelites spent in the land of Egypt. The two passages listed in the New Testament can easily be explained in light of these Old Testament passages. In Acts 7:6 Stephen is referring to the specific text of Genesis 15:13, thus the reason he uses 400 years. In Galatians 3:17 Paul is referring to the specific text of Exodus 12:40, thus the reason he uses 430 years.

While two different numbers are used, we must keep in mind that all of these accounts are inspired (II Timothy 3:16), and thus while they may seem to contradict on the surface, careful study will show that the scriptures do not contradict each other. The use of a rounded figure in Genesis 15:13 and Acts 7:6 does not contradict the use of the more exact figure in Exodus 12:40 and Galatians 3:17.

I hope that the answer given has been clear and understandable. If you are interested in doing some further research I would recommend looking at the following sources:

1. Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 1, page 305.
2. Hendriksen New Testament Commentary on Galatians, page 138-9.

There are many ways in which music today could be said to be against God. Below I have listed a couple of ways that music can be against God and some of the bands that would fall into these catagories. If you wish find any further information concerning these bands it would be easy enough to find on the internet.

1. Music that spits in the face of God.
   • Marilyn Manson: has a record entitled "Antichrist Superstar."
   • Godsmack: lead singer is a self-proclaimed witch.
2. Music that is against God because of its language and message.
   • Eminem: very popular rapper who has a foul mouth, degrades women, etc.
   • Limp Biskit: another very popular group that is filthy in language and its message.
   • Almost every "rap artist" would fit into this category.
3. Music that is against God because it promotes rebelling against authority. Cf. Romans 13:1
   • Rage against the Machine: a very outspoken anti-establishment group.
   • Ice-T: Had a record a couple of years ago entitled "cop-killer."
   • Most of the groups mentioned in the earlier categories would also fit into this category.
4. Music that is against God because of the promiscuos life-style that it encourages.
   • Blood Hound Gang: had a song a couple of years ago in which we are told that we are nothing but mammals, so we should engage in sexual activity like the other animals.
   • Much of rap music and popular music is centered around having sex. See Madonna for a classic example.
5. There are many musicians that there music might not be bad, but their immodest dress would be against God. This would include Brittney Spears, Destiny's Child, etc.

In short, one must be very careful about what music he or she listens to. Most artists are not going to curse God to His face (some will of course), but most will be against God in one of the other ways. We should be mindful of what is said in Philippians 4:8. Let us dwell on these things.

The question you pose is a very good one, for it does appear on the surface that Jesus' statement here in Mt. 12:40 is false. As you pointed out, Jesus did die on a Friday (Mark 15:42) and then rose from the dead on Sunday (Matt. 28:1). This would mean that Jesus was in the grave for only 2 nights, and not 3. However, we will see that the statement of Jesus' used in Mt. 12:40 was one that the Jews would understand did not necessarily mean 3 days and 3 nights as we might use them.

When speaking of the death and resurrection of Jesus, the gospel writers employ three different phrases:

1. He would rise on the third day. Mt. 16:21; 17:23.
2. He would rise after the third day. Mark 8:31.
3. He would be in the grave three days and three nights. Mt. 12:40.

One can easily see that the second and third statements would almost by synonymous, while the first statement is clearly different in that it states Jesus would rise on the third day, and not after.

Now to the heart of the matter; how would the Jews understand these statements? The Jews would take the first and second statements as meaning the same thing. Take these examples from the Old Testament:

1. Genesis 42:17-8. In vs. 17 it is said that Joseph put his brothers in prison for three days, yet we read in vs. 18 that on the third day they were released.
2. I Kings 12:5, 12. In vs. 5 Rehoboam tells the people to depart for 3 days and then return. We read in vs. 12 that the people returned on the third day.
3. Esther 4:16; 5:1. Esther instructs the Jews in 4:16 not to eat for 3 days (including nights) and that she would do the same, and after that time she would go to see the king. We read in 5:1 that it was on the third day that Esther went in to see the king.

These passages show that even though we might understand a phrase to mean after three days, the events were actually fulfilled on the third day. The example in Esther is particularly noteworthy in the fact that it includes the nights. Thus, the Jews would have understood the statement of Jesus in Mt. 12:40 to mean not that He would rise after the third day or night, but that this was just another way of saying that He would rise on the third day. This is exactly what the Pharisees understood Jesus to have meant, Mt. 27:63-4.