Early Church historical documents

Anyone interested in the early Church historical documents, I’ve just added 6 volumes of B.J. Kidd to my website, the D.H. Ruffle Memorial Library….

Is GOD punishing ORLANDO?

PERSPECTIVE: There was a new lady in our S S class yesterday and she brought up the shooting in Orlando and allowed that it…

In Romans 8:35 and 8:39, is it "Christ’s love" and "God’s love"? Or, "love for Christ" and "love for God"?

In Romans 8:35 and 8:39, is it “Christ’s love” and “God’s love” [subjective/objective]? Or, “love for Christ” and “love for God”? I can see it both ways but I think the context is about endurance and Paul is saying that nothing would be able to separate the saints from their love for God and his Christ. Here is the context which I modified from “love of” to “love for”:

Young’s Literal Translation (YLT):

Rom 8:35  Who shall separate us from the love for Christ? shall
tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or
peril, or sword?  Rom 8:36  As it is written, For thy sake we are
killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
 
Rom 8:37  Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through
him that loved us [God].  Rom 8:38  For I am persuaded, that neither
death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor
things present, nor things to come,  Rom 8:39  Nor height, nor depth,
nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love for
God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

If it is “love for God” then the definite article refers to the love “shed abroad” in the believers’ hearts:

YLT

Rom 5:3 And not only so , but we also boast in the tribulations,
knowing that the tribulation doth work endurance; Rom 5:4 and the
endurance, experience; and the experience, hope; Rom 5:5 and the
hope doth not make ashamed, because the love of God hath been poured
forth in our hearts through the Holy Spirit that hath been given to
us.

Rom 8:28 And we have known that to those loving God all things do
work together for good, to those who are called according to purpose;

Why is the observation that "it was good" missing on the second day?

The account of the first six days of creation as found in Genesis 1 is highly stylized, though with variations. For instance, each day ends, “And there was evening, and there was morning—the (n)th day.”

One variation that jumps out pertains to the statement, “And God saw that it was good.” This phrase is present on each of the first six days, except that it is peculiarly absent on the second day. I do note that on the third day this statement appears twice, with its first appearance being after what feels like a continuation of the separation of waters begun on the second day. It’s absence is conspicuous enough, though, that it feels intentional on the part of the author. But what was the author trying to convey here? Why omit this otherwise repeated refrain?